"toodlers" and "sandnigger" in the same post!
Take off the veil or don't drive, we shouldn't make a special case for the silly twat.
Printable View
"toodlers" and "sandnigger" in the same post!
Take off the veil or don't drive, we shouldn't make a special case for the silly twat.
This is very easily solved, so of course it'll drag on forever- driver's id is for identification. No picture, no id. Simple. But this has been discussed already and everyone is pretty much in agreement on it.
The thing that gets me is that the state falls back on fear or terrorism. Again. Guys, get over it. We had one terrorist attack in the US from insane religious zealots. Count them, one. No veils were used because nobody was stupid enough to try. This isn't about terrorism, it's about a stupid bitch. Stop pretending the boogeyman is at the door with a knife in one paw and a bazooka in the other. It's gotten old and we don't believe you any more.
James
Excellent post James.
What the fuck was that?Quote:
Originally posted by Almaci
if a religion says all toodlers should drive blindfolded the great US of A should provide constitutional protection unlike all those sandnigger countries.
Any credibility you thought you had just got fucked in the ass.
I think it was sarcasm
But those countries have some authority on the interpretation of Islamic law. You can only base a religious freedom claim on objective and widely-accepted interpretations of religion, not one person's idiosyncratic view.Quote:
Originally posted by Almaci
Devils advocate: But dude those countries arent democracies,the US is so screw what is and isnt allowed in those countries, if a religion says all toodlers should drive blindfolded the great US of A should provide constitutional protection unlike all those sandnigger countries.
You make a fair point otherwise.
I know and Melf is an idiot.
If so, the protection is meaningless.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
You can only base a religious freedom claim on objective and widely-accepted interpretations of religion, not one person's idiosyncratic view.
Driving is a not a right. She has nothing to sue about.
If not, the protection is all-encompassing and catastrophic. Personal beliefs do not equal religious doctrine. If they did, I would believe in Burgandism, which does not permit the paying of taxes.Quote:
Originally posted by LordPerrin
If so, the protection is meaningless.
You both need to calm down.Quote:
Originally posted by Almaci
I know and Melf is an idiot.