Couple's wedding clashes with Muslim fun day

[cday 0]

Of course, certain types of agreements must be made into a written contract or neither party can be legally held to them. According to attorney Stephan Fishman’s Consultant and Independent Contract Agreements (1998, Nolo Press), the following agreements must always be in writing to be valid:

 

* Agreements to sell tangible property, such as a computer or car, worth more than $500

* Agreements regarding the sale of real estate

* Agreements that can’t realistically be completed in less than one year, such as a project with three six-month deliverables

* Agreements that someone else will pay you, such as when someone who does not have authority to speak for the company promises that the company will pay you

* Any transfer of copyright ownership

 

--

 

Note that this doesn't include services, such as the topic that started all this, but we weren't specifically discussing that.

 

So even if you have people following you around witnessing your oral contracts, many of them can still be absolutely worthless and unenforceable.

[ManUtd 0]

The real question is, why do you people give such a fock about a stupid wedding conflcit in the uk?

 

God I miss the pron

 

 

Because I'm bored as sh!t right now and toro is entertaining his bullheaded logic.

[Toro 1]

But they weren't religiously discriminated against. They were asked to abide to a dress code. Much like a resteraunt or bar might do during a special event (ie: Valentine's day, New Year's Eve, Masquerade Ball). Yes a certain group asked for this dress code and the facility fully accepted with the condition that it is only enforced within the park. At no time were they denied access to the park. They were simply asked to put on a jacket, pants, mask, etc if they wanted to enjoy the rides within the park.

 

But the dress code is based on religion. If they said everyone had to wear a blue dodger's cap, that's one thing. In this instance, they had to follow a religious restriction. There is a difference between a baseball cap, wearing a sports jacket, and wearing a jewish beanie.

 

 

Of course, certain types of agreements must be made into a written contract or neither party can be legally held to them. According to attorney Stephan Fishman’s Consultant and Independent Contract Agreements (1998, Nolo Press), the following agreements must always be in writing to be valid:

 

* Agreements to sell tangible property, such as a computer or car, worth more than $500

* Agreements regarding the sale of real estate

* Agreements that can’t realistically be completed in less than one year, such as a project with three six-month deliverables

* Agreements that someone else will pay you, such as when someone who does not have authority to speak for the company promises that the company will pay you

* Any transfer of copyright ownership

 

--

 

Note that this doesn't include services, such as the topic that started all this, but we weren't specifically discussing that.

 

So even if you have people following you around witnessing your oral contracts, many of them can still be absolutely worthless and unenforceable.

 

I was just reading that. I agreed that I would rather have a written.

 

 

Because I'm bored as sh!t right now and toro is winning this argument.

 

[ManUtd 0]

But the dress code is based on religion. If they said everyone had to wear a blue dodger's cap, that's one thing. In this instance, they had to follow a religious restriction. There is a difference between a baseball cap, wearing a sports jacket, and wearing a jewish beanie.

 

 

They didn't have to wear the religious garb, just cover their face/hair and legs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fishing sure is fun; isn't it?

 

Alright come back with a counter arguement.

 

Go!

[cday 0]

what constitutes a legally established religion, anyway? if i found the church of cday, and i say that you have to wear a pirates cap to this park, is that enforcing religion?

 

seems like a pretty gray area, legally. i'd need to read up more on the legal definitions of religious discrimination.

 

note -- i would never be as cruel to establish the religion i noted above, unless it required wearing paper bags over the head in conjunction with said pirates cap.

[Toro 1]

They didn't have to wear the religious garb, just cover their face/hair and legs.

Fishing sure is fun; isn't it?

 

Alright come back with a counter arguement.

 

Go!

 

That's a restriction based on religion.

 

Also, it's not the norm based on the community standards. It was based on the religious beliefs of the camel jockeys.

 

what constitutes a legally established religion, anyway? if i found the church of cday, and i say that you have to wear a pirates cap to this park, is that enforcing religion?

 

seems like a pretty gray area, legally. i'd need to read up more on the legal definitions of religious discrimination.

 

note -- i would never be as cruel to establish the religion i noted above, unless it required wearing paper bags over the head in conjunction with said pirates cap.

 

:flyingspeghettimonster:

[ManUtd 0]

That's a restriction based on religion.

 

Also, it's not the norm based on the community standards. It was based on the religious beliefs of the camel jockeys.

 

 

I never thought that covering your face/hair, legs, etc is solely based on religion.

those stupid moslim bee keepers!

 

Also, why couldn't the bride just keep her veil on?

[gocolts 300]

I never thought that covering your face/hair, legs, etc is solely based on religion.

those stupid moslim bee keepers!

 

Also, why couldn't the bride just keep her veil on?

 

 

Well it is.All this face covering garbage should be banned.You don't go to a free country,and then expect everyone to conform to you.

 

Don't you people know what the burka represents???

 

It is like black people walking around in chains and shackels.It represents oppression.The focking muslim women should NOT be wearing them,let alone,ask someone else to wear something that degrads women.

[Snoopy1 0]

Wow, it's amazing seeing one person so owned in a thread.

 

Toro

post Today, 04:45 PM

Post #52

 

Here your link:

 

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion in public accommodations, such as restaurants, theaters, and hotels. Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion in public facilities owned or operated by a state or local government.

 

US civil rights law doesn't apply to people in England

STRIKE 1

 

 

 

But the facilities allowed usage of the park to multiple parties. Therefore, not private. Are you saying that the couple and their wedding party were told before they booked the party that the rides were going to be off limits???

 

 

From there website:

 

National Muslim Funday - Private Event

Alton Towers has been privately booked for this event and is not acting as a ticket-selling agent. To book your tickets please call 0871 8732393 or visit www.IslamicLeisure.co.uk

 

 

IE, it's closed to the general public, it is not a public place that day.

 

 

STRIKE 2

 

 

From the article:

At the time they made the booking the only date available was Saturday, Sept 16. They were happy to accept it, believing that they and the 60 guests for whom they had booked 20 rooms would be able to enjoy the following day on the rides.

 

 

There was no contract that they would have use of the park the next day, they assumed that themselves. Reading comprehension, CATCH IT.

 

 

STRIKE 3

 

Toro, you are the Rob Deer of intellectual discourse.

[Toro 1]

Wow, it's amazing seeing one person so owned in a thread.

US civil rights law doesn't apply to people in England

STRIKE 1

From there website:

 

National Muslim Funday - Private Event

Alton Towers has been privately booked for this event and is not acting as a ticket-selling agent. To book your tickets please call 0871 8732393 or visit www.IslamicLeisure.co.uk

IE, it's closed to the general public, it is not a public place that day.

STRIKE 2

From the article:

At the time they made the booking the only date available was Saturday, Sept 16. They were happy to accept it, believing that they and the 60 guests for whom they had booked 20 rooms would be able to enjoy the following day on the rides.

There was no contract that they would have use of the park the next day, they assumed that themselves. Reading comprehension, CATCH IT.

STRIKE 3

 

Toro, you are the Rob Deer of intellectual discourse.

 

Ball One: If you are to assume that the UK does not have similar legislation, you are an idiot.

 

Ball Two: Alton Towers, not Islamic Leisure, were the ones that were in charge of whether or not is was a private party. They didn't say the coupel COUND NOT ride, they said they would have to cover their face. Doesn't sound too private to me, Matlock.

 

Ball Three: "At the time they made the booking the only date available was Saturday, Sept 16. They were happy to accept it, believing that they and the 60 guests for whom they had booked 20 rooms would be able to enjoy the following day on the rides."

Once again, they were not told they could NOT ride. They were told that to be able to ride, they must conform to islamic dress code.

Reading comprehension, CATCH IT.

 

Ball Four: Walk.

You focking idiot.

[gocolts 300]

Wow, it's amazing seeing one person so owned in a thread.

 

Spoken a little too soon

 

How you people can't see the real problem after 3 pages of debate is laughable.

 

For all those who THINK the radical,intolerant,muslims were in the right here,I guess you have no problem with slavery,because that is what the burka represents.Centries of oppression and slavery to women.

 

Ball One: If you are to assume that the UK does not have similar legislation, you are an idiot.

 

Ball Two: Alton Towers, not Islamic Leisure, were the ones that were in charge of whether or not is was a private party. They didn't say the coupel COUND NOT ride, they said they would have to cover their face. Doesn't sound too private to me, Matlock.

 

Ball Three: "At the time they made the booking the only date available was Saturday, Sept 16. They were happy to accept it, believing that they and the 60 guests for whom they had booked 20 rooms would be able to enjoy the following day on the rides."

Once again, they were not told they could NOT ride. They were told that to be able to ride, they must conform to islamic dress code.

Reading comprehension, CATCH IT.

 

Ball Four: Walk.

You focking idiot.

 

SLAM

[Snoopy1 0]

Well now that gocolts has solidly sided wit you Toro, I think that proves with 100% certainty that I was right.

[Toro 1]

Well now that gocolts has solidly sided wit you Toro, I think that proves with 100% certainty that I was right.

 

While I am sad that he has taken my side, even a broken clock it right twice a day.

 

Pick a point and we can discuss. Try not to bring multiple aspects into it. Just one point that you made.

[Voltaire 4,573]

Do they let you cut in front of them during prayer time?

[Thornton Melon 546]

Personally, I woudn't want to be anywhere near an exaggerated blast radius of anything even resembling a "Muslim Fun Day".

 

I know. Could you imagine the smell???

[gocolts 300]

While I am sad that he has taken my side

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NJJoe20 0]

Whoever was booked second is SOL.