3rdnlng Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/article1158818.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Your thread title is needlessly inflammatory and ineffably stupid and inaccurate, and the judge in this case is a complete and utter moron who should rightfully be kicked off the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 Your thread title is needlessly inflammatory and ineffably stupid and inaccurate, and the judge in this case is a complete and utter moron who should rightfully be kicked off the bench. Well, I see you got this hour's proclamation out of the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/article1158818.ece It's a poorly written article, perhaps intentionally so. If the members of the suit had a contract with provisions under which they agree to follow the letter of Sharia Law, the judge's decision to enforce the contract as it's written would necessitate application of said law. The author gives little if any insight as to the material questions, leading me to think this might be the case. Otherwise the judge should be impeached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 It's a poorly written article, perhaps intentionally so. If the members of the suit had a contract with provisions under which they agree to follow the letter of Sharia Law, the judge's decision to enforce the contract as it's written would necessitate application of said law. The author gives little if any insight as to the material questions, leading me to think this might be the case. Otherwise the judge should be impeached. What if the arbitrator called for one party to lose their left hand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Sub humans hear about Sharia Law every Sunday... over and over and over... what the Iscariot silver in pastor's pocket buys... and the same sub humans thought invading Saddam was fighting "radical Islam," even though Saddam was not Islamic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 It's a poorly written article, perhaps intentionally so. If the members of the suit had a contract with provisions under which they agree to follow the letter of Sharia Law, the judge's decision to enforce the contract as it's written would necessitate application of said law. The author gives little if any insight as to the material questions, leading me to think this might be the case. Otherwise the judge should be impeached. Except that the article says the mosque itself disagrees with the application of Sharia law in secular courts. Sounds to me like they didn't agree to it...if they did, then I'd agree with you. What if the arbitrator called for one party to lose their left hand? Or what if the arbitrator decided that everyone should gang-rape a white woman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 What if the arbitrator called for one party to lose their left hand? In the first scenario I described (which may not be what's going on here at all) Sharia law would only be used insofar as there was a contractual agreement to follow it, and the judge would simply be enforcing a contract the parties had agreed to of their own volition. You can't contract for illegal activity, therefore any such provision would void the contract and render it unenforcable by the court. However, if they contracted to follow procedural methods of resolution that do not violate any state or federal law, that's a different story. Except that the article says the mosque itself disagrees with the application of Sharia law in secular courts. Sounds to me like they didn't agree to it...if they did, then I'd agree with you. The mosque may just not like the foreseeable outcome. The whole thing's really hypothetical since the author didn't feel it necessary to share any pertinent legal aspects of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Sub humans hear about Sharia Law every Sunday... over and over and over... what the Iscariot silver in pastor's pocket buys... and the same sub humans thought invading Saddam was fighting "radical Islam," even though Saddam was not Islamic... Wrong, !@#$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Why? WHY? WHYYYYY??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts