Couple's wedding clashes with Muslim fun day

[gocolts 300]

Couple's wedding clashes with Muslim fun day

 

A couple's plans for a £5,000 wedding at Alton Towers were thrown into confusion yesterday after it emerged that the theme park had double booked them with a fun day for 20,000 Muslims.

 

Amanda Morris, 30, and her fiance, Scott Lee, 31, have been told that if they go ahead with the ceremony they will not be allowed to go on celebratory rides together.

 

Furthermore, Miss Morris and her female guests will have to cover up to be in line with guests of Islamic Leisure wearing hijabs. "I've been looking forward to this day for 18 months, and suddenly it's in ruins," she said yesterday.

 

What about tolerance??

 

I guess the liberals mean tolerance,as long as we agree with it.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

I suppose it would be asking too much to blame the park for focking up in the first place.

[RLLD 3,503]

If you are Muslim you dont have to be tolerant, everyone else must bow to you and be tolerant of your beliefs.....you better let them have their way before they start blowing sh!t up....

[Toro 1]

I would be suing the hell outta that place for religious descrimination.

[randandy 0]

fock

 

moslims

[Voltaire 4,573]

Um... it's not the Muslim's fault here. They didn't do anything wrong. Place the blame where it belongs, with the park (who are probably going to p*ss off both and keep all the profits).

[gocolts 300]

Um... it's not the Muslim's fault here. They didn't do anything wrong. Place the blame where it belongs, with the park (who are probably going to p*ss off both and keep all the profits).

 

The muslims were NOT being very tolerant

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Um... it's not the Muslim's fault here. They didn't do anything wrong. Place the blame where it belongs, with the park (who are probably going to p*ss off both and keep all the profits).

 

While I agree that it is the park's fault, you will have to come up with a better reason on why the wedding guests have to conform to Muslim tradition of dress and sexual segregation in the U.K.

[Riddlen 1]

Um... it's not the Muslim's fault here. They didn't do anything wrong. Place the blame where it belongs, with the park (who are probably going to p*ss off both and keep all the profits).

its mostly the parks fault and SOME the muslims fault for being unwilling to share the park unless they other party was willing to follow thier rules.

[ManUtd 0]

While I agree that it is the park's fault, you will have to come up with a better reason on why the wedding guests have to conform to Muslim tradition of dress and sexual segregation in the U.K.

 

 

1) The group of 20,000 Muslims is probably paying more than the wedding group for the parks facilities.

2) The Muslim group probably booked the park for just this reason.....to have fun while not violating their religious beliefs. Otherwise I believe they would have just went with all the other whities during regular operating days.

3) Think of it this way....A nudist couple decides to have their wedding at the park but the park double books the day for Christian Family Day. The nudist couple and the wedding party (also nudist) are told they must cover up once entering the park for the rides. Is this such a hard concept to understand?

 

Basically the park is appeasing the larger and more profitable group. the ONLY reason this is making headlinees and ticking you people off is because the group involved is Muslim.

[Toro 1]

3) Think of it this way....A nudist couple decides to have their wedding at the park but the park double books the day for Christian Family Day. The nudist couple and the wedding party (also nudist) are told they must cover up once entering the park for the rides. Is this such a hard concept to understand?

 

Basically the park is appeasing the larger and more profitable group. the ONLY reason this is making headlinees and ticking you people off is because the group involved is Muslim.

 

I will disagree with you. This is not about common decency standards set by the community at large (such as wearing pants), this is about segregation and requirement of conformity beyond that community standard based on the religious beliefs of a single group.

 

Muslims work, travel, and are out on society all the time. They are with people of different religions, dress and customs when they go to the grocery store or when they attend a PTA meeting, yet they aren't violating their religion to be around people wearing shorts, dresses or any other attire.

 

I will agree that the park was not doing this for religious reasons but more for profit and appeasement of the larger share of money, that appeasement was based on the religious beliefs of a certain group. The wedding couple didn't want to get on the rides butt-naked or while they were bar-b-queing a pig.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

1) The group of 20,000 Muslims is probably paying more than the wedding group for the parks facilities.

2) The Muslim group probably booked the park for just this reason.....to have fun while not violating their religious beliefs. Otherwise I believe they would have just went with all the other whities during regular operating days.

3) Think of it this way....A nudist couple decides to have their wedding at the park but the park double books the day for Christian Family Day. The nudist couple and the wedding party (also nudist) are told they must cover up once entering the park for the rides. Is this such a hard concept to understand?

 

Basically the park is appeasing the larger and more profitable group. the ONLY reason this is making headlinees and ticking you people off is because the group involved is Muslim.

 

Blow me. The park booked 2 groups, it does not matter the size, they are both entitled to equal use. By your reasoning if the nudists were the larger group the Christians would have to shed their clothes. The only thing that ticks me off is the fact that tolerance, once again, seems to work only in one direction.

[cday 0]

they are both entitled to equal use.

 

obviously, this is incorrect.

[Electric Mayhem 35]

The demands of the Muslims do not have priority over the rights of a U.K. citizen. If it is within the laws of the U.K. to not have to cover you face (which it is the last I checked), then they don't have to.

 

Alton Towers can't make up their own laws if they accepted the $$$ of the bridal party. That's like saying "well, this group of Satanists rented out the park... so we're going to let them sacrifice babies on the Tilt-A-Whirl.

[Toro 1]

obviously, this is incorrect.

 

No. While you can say there are limitations because it is a private company, there are laws in place that ban descrimination based on race, religion, sex, etc. So if you are talking about everyone having equal use without having religious requirements placed on them, then it is equal use.

[Riddlen 1]

1) The group of 20,000 Muslims is probably paying more than the wedding group for the parks facilities.

2) The Muslim group probably booked the park for just this reason.....to have fun while not violating their religious beliefs. Otherwise I believe they would have just went with all the other whities during regular operating days.

3) Think of it this way....A nudist couple decides to have their wedding at the park but the park double books the day for Christian Family Day. The nudist couple and the wedding party (also nudist) are told they must cover up once entering the park for the rides. Is this such a hard concept to understand?

 

Basically the park is appeasing the larger and more profitable group. the ONLY reason this is making headlinees and ticking you people off is because the group involved is Muslim.

except being nude is a crime and NOT wearing a head wrap thing isnt HTH

[wiffleball 4,659]

I have less of a problem with Muslims renting out a private facility and doing their Allah-thing. What we're seeing all over America right now is Muslim women requiring private gyms to provide them with seperate work-out hours away from men, seperate swimming areas, etc...

 

-Now, THAT's BS.

 

 

The legal issue in this one is right here:

 

"An Alton Towers spokesman claimed it was a condition of the Islamic Leisure booking that wedding and hotel guests would be exempt from the Muslim dress code"

 

IF they have that in writing, than Fock the Muslims. IF not, then Alton Towers focked up huge.

[ManUtd 0]

except being nude is a crime and NOT wearing a head wrap thing isnt HTH

 

 

Not on private property (ie: nudist colonies). If the park gave them permission and the group/park gained the necessary permits to allow said event for 1 day at the park, then nudity within an enclosed private area would not be in violation of the law.

 

 

But since this example was a little extreme for you guys to except, how about this........

The 20,000 person group are Vegans, so the couple is told to they can no longer serve their reception meal wich included Chicken and Roast. Grandma is told to remove her fur shawl before entering, crazy cousin Sue is not permitted in with her suede skirt, and etc. Either way the park is allowed to refuse service at their discretion, and will ALWAYS bow to the higher paying party's demands over the lower.

 

This isn't a race, religion issue; it's an economics issue. Sure the Muslims enter act with bare legged, non-scarf wearing people everyday but as I stated before they rented the park this day to enjoy within the boundriees of their beliefs. Otherwise, they probably would have just went to the park on an ordinary day like I see family reunions do at Six Flags all the time. But I still stand by my statement before that this would be a non-issue with you guys except it involves Muslims.

 

I have less of a problem with Muslims renting out a private facility and doing their Allah-thing. What we're seeing all over America right now is Muslim women requiring private gyms to provide them with seperate work-out hours away from men, seperate swimming areas, etc...

 

-Now, THAT's BS.

The legal issue in this one is right here:

 

"An Alton Towers spokesman claimed it was a condition of the Islamic Leisure booking that wedding and hotel guests would be exempt from the Muslim dress code"

 

IF they have that in writing, than Fock the Muslims. IF not, then Alton Towers focked up huge.

 

I agree with you totally except I don't believe Muslim women are "requiring" gyms to do this. I believe they are requesting this and the gyms seeing an untapped market are conforming....again for the almighty dollar.

[Toro 1]

Not on private property (ie: nudist colonies). If the park gave them permission and the group/park gained the necessary permits to allow said event for 1 day at the park, then nudity within an enclosed private area would not be in violation of the law.

But since this example was a little extreme for you guys to except, how about this........

The 20,000 person group are Vegans, so the couple is told to they can no longer serve their reception meal wich included Chicken and Roast. Grandma is told to remove her fur shawl before entering, crazy cousin Sue is not permitted in with her suede skirt, and etc. Either way the park is allowed to refuse service at their discretion, and will ALWAYS bow to the higher paying party's demands over the lower.

 

This isn't a race, religion issue; it's an economics issue. Sure the Muslims enter act with bare legged, non-scarf wearing people everyday but as I stated before they rented the park this day to enjoy within the boundriees of their beliefs. Otherwise, they probably would have just went to the park on an ordinary day like I see family reunions do at Six Flags all the time. But I still stand by my statement before that this would be a non-issue with you guys except it involves Muslims.

 

You keep changing it from religious to non-religious standards. That changes the entire argument and the laws regarding non-descrimination. They did not rent the entire park because the park obviously allowed another party in. Therefore it is NOT a private party as you are trying to contend.

[footballpowers 0]

The muslims were NOT being very tolerant

This is so ironic to me. Gocolts calling someone else intolerant!?!?

[Blitzen 0]

Let's say the Muslims asked the hotel first to ensure that it was a private thing and the hotel said yes, and then proceeded to book the wedding. How is this the Muslims' fault?

 

If the Muslims never got such an assurance, then I agree with you.

 

You keep changing it from religious to non-religious standards. That changes the entire argument and the laws regarding non-descrimination. They did not rent the entire park because the park obviously allowed another party in. Therefore it is NOT a private party as you are trying to contend.

 

How do you know this to be the case? maybe the hotel owner just tried to pull in more dough.

[ManUtd 0]

You keep changing it from religious to non-religious standards. That changes the entire argument and the laws regarding non-descrimination. They did not rent the entire park because the park obviously allowed another party in. Therefore it is NOT a private party as you are trying to contend.

 

 

Toro, Alton Towers made the mistake by double booking the park on that day. It WAS a private party. Did you even read the article or just gocolts little blurb that slants the whole thing? Even the bride doesn't blame the Muslims.

 

Come on, 60 guests renting 20 rooms for a one time event, or 20,000 guests renting outt the facility for what may become an annual event. Which one would you give the preferred treatment to?

[cday 0]

No. While you can say there are limitations because it is a private company, there are laws in place that ban descrimination based on race, religion, sex, etc. So if you are talking about everyone having equal use without having religious requirements placed on them, then it is equal use.

 

if the muslim group has a contract with the park, a private establishment, then yeah, the other couple is pretty much screwed. no law is going to help them there, the park focked up by double-booking them.

 

the article is too vague to determine what really happened, who signed first, what the contracts actually said, and if it was intentionally double booked or not. so who the hell knows. what seems pretty clear is the park screwed up and is caving to the people who are going to be giving it the most money.

 

it is called capitalism. catch it.

[Toro 1]

Let's say the Muslims asked the hotel first to ensure that it was a private thing and the hotel said yes, and then proceeded to book the wedding. How is this the Muslims' fault?

 

If the Muslims never got such an assurance, then I agree with you.

How do you know this to be the case? maybe the hotel owner just tried to pull in more dough.

 

You could either sue the hotel for religious descrimination (if they allow the wedding party to happen and place religious restrictions on their clothing) or for breach of contract (if they didn't allow the party in). If you let me in to your place of business, you have to treat me within the normal operational procedures as you would the general public at large if it is not a completely private party.

 

Think about it this way. Would they require someone to follow religious dress requirements on a regular day at the park? Because once you allow multiple private parties to use the facilities at the same time, it becomes the exact same as if the park was open to the public.

[cday 0]

Because once you allow multiple private parties to use the facilities at the same time, it becomes the exact same as if the park was open to the public.

 

hmm.

 

you seem to like making authoritative statements that are blatently false.

[Toro 1]

hmm.

 

you seem to like making authoritative statements that are blatently false.

 

Prove it.

[Blitzen 0]

You could either sue the hotel for religious descrimination (if they allow the wedding party to happen and place religious restrictions on their clothing) or for breach of contract (if they didn't allow the party in). If you let me in to your place of business, you have to treat me within the normal operational procedures as you would the general public at large if it is not a completely private party.

 

Think about it this way. Would they require someone to follow religious dress requirements on a regular day at the park? Because once you allow multiple private parties to use the facilities at the same time, it becomes the exact same as if the park was open to the public.

 

They can sue all they want but it isn't the Muslims' fault. kapish?

[cday 0]

Prove it.

 

that you like making authoritative statements that are blatently false? i already did that in the pre-nup thread.

 

you're the one making ridiculous claims, you back them up. i don't think you can do it.

[Toro 1]

They can sue all they want but it isn't the Muslims' fault. kapish?

 

I agree that it isn't the muslim's fault. I never said it was.

 

The point I am trying to make is that it is descrimination based on religion to allow public entrace to your facility and require you to perform religious acts (wear clothing a certain way). If this had been a Christian day and they asked a smaller Muslim party to not wear their headgear, what would happen then? It's still descrimination.

[wiffleball 4,659]

I had something like this happen to me once.

 

Disneyland has it's annual "Gay Day" every year. (I think they cancelled it now). They can't shut out heteros or christians or anybody else.

 

...The part I hated was that the Gay Day people sent a list of requirements to Disneyland beforehand.

 

 

Man, I hated getting axx-focked on 'Pirates of the Carribean'. - But hey -they had their requirements...

 

 

 

Coulda been worse - It'd could been on "It's a small world...."

[Toro 1]

that you like making authoritative statements that are blatently false? i already did that in the pre-nup thread.

 

you're the one making ridiculous claims, you back them up. i don't think you can do it.

 

What is so rediculous with understanding the concept that having multiple private parties in a common venue no longer makes the party private?????

 

Do you freaking understand THAT?

[ManUtd 0]

I agree that it isn't the muslim's fault. I never said it was.

 

The point I am trying to make is that it is descrimination based on religion to allow public entrace to your facility and require you to perform religious acts (wear clothing a certain way). If this had been a Christian day and they asked a smaller Muslim party to not wear their headgear, what would happen then? It's still descrimination.

 

 

Again, knucklehead, it wasn't public entrance. Two private parties were double booked for the day. Why are you not getting this?

[Toro 1]

Again, knucklehead, it wasn't public entrance. Two private parties were double booked for the day. Why are you not getting this?

 

please see above.

[wiffleball 4,659]

"An Alton Towers spokesman claimed it was a condition of the Islamic Leisure booking that wedding and hotel guests would be exempt from the Muslim dress code". We need to know if that's in writing or not. We don't know.

[cday 0]

What is so rediculous with understanding the concept that having multiple private parties in a common venue no longer makes the party private?????

 

Do you freaking understand THAT?

 

because it doesn't?

 

show me some legal backing for your claim. a park can certainly rent out space to multiple private parties, each with individual terms & conditions.

[ManUtd 0]

What is so rediculous with understanding the concept that having multiple private parties in a common venue no longer makes the party private?????

 

Do you freaking understand THAT?

 

 

Banquet halls bud. They can have 2+ different wedding receptions going on at the sametime but each party is private. the only intermingling would be in the bathroom, lobby and smoking sections. Next.

[Toro 1]

because it doesn't?

 

show me some legal backing for your claim. a park can certainly rent out space to multiple private parties, each with individual terms & conditions.

 

so I am supposed to sit here and spend an hour doing legal research finding you precedents because you can't understand the basic concept of having two private parties in the same focking room doesn't make it private? I guess when you go to a hotel and they say private bath, that means another private party down the hallway can take a shat in your toilet??

 

You really need to get a grip. Do you own research.

[RLLD 3,503]

Um... it's not the Muslim's fault here. They didn't do anything wrong. Place the blame where it belongs, with the park (who are probably going to p*ss off both and keep all the profits).

 

 

Don't the freedoms gaurunteed under the Bill of Rights and Constitution allow us the freedom to NOT submit to religious mandates to which we do not agree?

 

If they paid entry to this park then they have secured the right to use the facilities at their descretion, the Muslims can absolutely go fock themselves.

[Toro 1]

Banquet halls bud. They can have 2+ different wedding receptions going on at the sametime but each party is private. the only intermingling would be in the bathroom, lobby and smoking sections. Next.

 

The banquet hall is not private. The rooms are, jackass.

 

[cday 0]

so I am supposed to sit here and spend an hour doing legal research finding you precedents because you can't understand the basic concept of having two private parties in the same focking room doesn't make it private? I guess when you go to a hotel and they say private bath, that means another private party down the hallway can take a shat in your toilet??

 

You really need to get a grip. Do you own research.

 

no, i don't expect you to, because you surely realize now that your statement:

 

Because once you allow multiple private parties to use the facilities at the same time, it becomes the exact same as if the park was open to the public.

 

is just wrong.

 

thanks for playing. you are now 0-2.