Muslims are ANGRY at Texas Mayor After She Stops “Sharia Court”

[Uncensored2008]

Correct. The so called anti sharia law simply stated this:

Sec. 1A.002. DECISION BASED ON FOREIGN LAW. A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator under this title may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a fundamental right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution or a statute of this state.

No decision by a court, arbitrator or administrative adjudicator can be applied in such as way that it violates a fundamental right protected by they US constitution, the state constitution or state law NOW. This law is not necessary.

Since that is virtually what Mayor Van Duyne posted; let me refresh your memory as to her words:

{"To me, this is about making sure people, especially women, understand our nation guarantees certain rights and liberties, and those should not be surrendered,"}

What is it you leftists are up in arms over?

 

[Uncensored2008]

That state law the council supported DID NOT PASS. If parties to a civil matter agree to have their dispute decided by an ADR panel that will apply principles of their faith, whatever that faith is, then the decision is binding on the parties. End of story.

Irrelevant, the ADR statutes of the state define what can and cannot be done.

The MOST that the Imams can do is voluntary mediation. They are not court appointed arbiters, (which don't have to be retired judges, my mistake, but usually are.) and lack any legal training. Binding arbitration is not a legal action for them.

 

[aris2chat]

If they are incapable of doing the job they should not have been hired.

 

[Coyote]

What civil penalties?

Whatever penalty the islamic Kangaroo Court declares. The point of going to the city was to gain the authority representative OF the City.

Don't burden yourself by trying to understand, as despite such being the most elementary of equations... it is well above your means to understand.

For the upteenth time, let's try to stick to reality. What civil penalties are they seeking to impose - surely you can come up with an informational link with out a brain spasm?

Don't be thick. They're seeking the right to impose whatever penalties they deem fit and as part of their strategy, they're omitting specifics. We don't have to give you the specifics they choose not to disclose, nor can we. But you're not the only one asking that question which is why Texas saw fit to pass the law banning the practice.

Do you have a source to support your claim or are you pulling this out of thin air with the secret "we can't disclose" statement?