Gulf states to introduce medical testing on travellers to "detect" gay people and stop them from entering the country

[BIGUN 1,486]

>>>>medical testing on travelers to "detect" gay people

It's very scientific.

Drop your pants.
Now, I'm going to stick my dick in your ass.
If you squeal in delight; you fail.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[rickjump1 0]

Bignugget

No, you are confused.

This was overturned.

Obamacare was enforced..(upheld but we can stick with your terminology)

Yeah, and the young wife was never raped again before it was overturned.

Is English a second language for you?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rickjump1 0]

BIGUN

>>>>medical testing on travelers to "detect" gay people

It's very scientific.

Drop your pants.
Now, I'm going to stick my dick in your ass.
If you squeal in delight; you fail.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/10/sharia-in-action-in-iran-network-of-homosexuals-and-satanists-arrested-at-birthday-party.html
"Sharia in action in Iran: Network of homosexuals and satanists" arrested at birthday party.
Meanwhile, gay activists in the U.S. like Chris Stedman demonize those who speak out against this, and carry water for the oppressors. To stand against Sharia oppression of homosexuals is "Islamophobic" and "hateful."

"Iran arrests 'network of homosexuals and satanists' at birthday party," by Saeed Kamali Dehghan for the Guardian, October 10 (thanks to all who sent this in):"

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

be allowed to beat women and rape boys

Yea but the South is too hot and the church well you have to be a Christian to rape boys that's kind of their thing.


You know I like freedom of speech but the hate speech some of you fuckers spew on her daily is comical.

I hope you understand that the ones on here who CAN READ and do we just laugh.
Nothing you say is based in reality. Most of you are so god damn dumb that you are incapable of even accurately describing what you hate so much.

As I always ask for the good of humanity please don’t reproduce.


Edit to add: JIHAD WATCH is the source LOLOL Really do you think that's a source of fair and balanced information. some of you are such a fucking joke

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[billvon 3,119]

>Sharia law was enforced by a judge.

OK, then I have a question for you.

You borrow $100 from a friend one weekend and tell him "I'll pay you back next weekend." You pay him back the next weekend. He says "sorry bud you owe me $200. Interest you know." You say that's silly. He sues you.

In court he accuses you of reneging on the deal, and claims you are following Sharia Law which prohibits interest. Should the court find in his favor?

[rickjump1 0]

billvon

>Sharia law was enforced by a judge.

OK, then I have a question for you.

You borrow $100 from a friend one weekend and tell him "I'll pay you back next weekend." You pay him back the next weekend. He says "sorry bud you owe me $200. Interest you know." You say that's silly. He sues you.

In court he accuses you of reneging on the deal, and claims you are following Sharia Law which prohibits interest. Should the court find in his favor?

Nope, don't cloud the issue. Some judges in the United States do rule in favor of Sharia Law, and hopefully, they are overturned. What if your friend borrowed a BBQ pork sandwich, and paid him back with a dolphin sandwich?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,119]

>Nope, don't cloud the issue.

Didn't think you'd be willing to answer it because it would demonstrate the hypocrisy of your position. You oppose any aspect of Sharia Law in court - unless it benefits you.

[wmw999 2,589]

Is it OK for judges to rule based on the Bible?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[labrys 0]

Quote

Is it OK for judges to rule based on the Bible?

Hush you. They're talking about Sharia Law, not the good Christian foundation of the American Legal Syst...

Oh wait.

Owned by Remi #?

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>Sharia law was enforced by a judge.

OK, then I have a question for you.

You borrow $100 from a friend one weekend and tell him "I'll pay you back next weekend." You pay him back the next weekend. He says "sorry bud you owe me $200. Interest you know." You say that's silly. He sues you.

In court he accuses you of reneging on the deal, and claims you are following Sharia Law which prohibits interest. Should the court find in his favor?

There is a limit to the amount he can legally charge.

Your hypothetical sucks.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rickjump1 0]

billvon

>Nope, don't cloud the issue.

Didn't think you'd be willing to answer it because it would demonstrate the hypocrisy of your position. You oppose any aspect of Sharia Law in court - unless it benefits you.

There is no "hypocrisy" here. Please show me where I supported any aspect of sharia law in the American courtroom. Is it so hard to understand that American Law is the law of the land? Is it so hard to understand that some judges (that have been overturned), have unlawfully sided with sharia law? "You oppose any aspect of Sharia Law in court - unless it benefits you". Show me where I wanted to benefit from sharia law, but take a long nap first. We want to be clear headed about this. One of our Canadian friends summed this up for you perfectly, "It is completely unbelievable to me that you appear to have absolutely no clue what is happening to you in this thread."

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rickjump1 0]

wmw999

Is it OK for judges to rule based on the Bible?

Wendy P.

It's OK for judges to rule based on the US Constitution and the Law of the Land. Now, if you want to change that, contact your elected representatives. I'm sure they will feel your pain.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,119]

>There is a limit to the amount he can legally charge.

Why would you support Sharia Law?

[billvon 3,119]

> Please show me where I supported any aspect of sharia law in the American courtroom.

Read the question I posed to you above. If you expected your friend to honor the agreement (i.e. a loan with no interest) then you supported Sharia Law.

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>There is a limit to the amount he can legally charge.

Why would you support Sharia Law?

One is not necessarily the other in your scenario.

One IS the other in his.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rickjump1 0]

billvon

> Please show me where I supported any aspect of sharia law in the American courtroom.

Read the question I posed to you above. If you expected your friend to honor the agreement (i.e. a loan with no interest) then you supported Sharia Law.

Nope, I knew my friend would attempt usury beforehand, and I knew his friend wanting the $100 was illegally in the country and spoke very little English. Besides, I'm such a bigot, I could care less about the victim. My friend had also offered to loan me his beautiful wife and his Lear Jet for a weekend. Haven't decided which weekend yet. My wife keeps a pretty good eye on me.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,119]

>Nope, I knew my friend would attempt usury beforehand

Good job at deliberately missing the point. I'll explain more clearly.

If you agree to a contract with someone, and it is not illegal, it is often enforceable in a court of law. That's true even if it happens to, implicitly or explicitly, follow Sharia Law. That's true even if it happens to, implicitly or explicitly, follow the laws of Leviticus. That's true even if it happens to, implicitly or explicitly, follow Rick's Laws. That's true even if it happens to, implicitly or explicitly, follow a DZO's rules.

Are you getting the gist of this yet?

If ANY of them describe something illegal, then it's null and void. If the agreement is wholly legal it doesn't matter what you call the law it's based on - Sharia, Leviticus, Rick's, your DZO's etc. Saying "all those are fine except Sharia - then you have to throw it out" is stupid, and reveals both the prejudice of the commenter and his lack of understanding of the law.

[rickjump1 0]

billvon

>Nope, I knew my friend would attempt usury beforehand

Good job at deliberately missing the point. I'll explain more clearly.

If you agree to a contract with someone, and it is not illegal, it is often enforceable in a court of law. That's true even if it happens to, implicitly or explicitly, follow Sharia Law. That's true even if it happens to, implicitly or explicitly, follow the laws of Leviticus. That's true even if it happens to, implicitly or explicitly, follow Rick's Laws. That's true even if it happens to, implicitly or explicitly, follow a DZO's rules.

Are you getting the gist of this yet?

If ANY of them describe something illegal, then it's null and void. If the agreement is wholly legal it doesn't matter what you call the law it's based on - Sharia, Leviticus, Rick's, your DZO's etc. Saying "all those are fine except Sharia - then you have to throw it out" is stupid, and reveals both the prejudice of the commenter and his lack of understanding of the law.

When a Martian citizen appears in an American court, he is tried under American Law. His Martian lawyer may attempt to convince the judge that cutting off the fingers of his wife's left hand for drinking a beer is perfectly permissible under Martian Law, but in the end, American Law must trump Martial Law.

If Mormon, Christian, Hindu, Martian, or Muslim usury laws "happen" to follow American Law, so what? It should not matter as long as it "follows" American Law.

You're example is poor because they should have had a written agreement before hand, and making a statement containing, " it is 'often' enforceable in a court of law", is lame. Often? That's almost as bad assumption: the mother of fuck ups.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.