The Philosophy of Law - Muslims vs Landlord

Its not like they were forcing the landlord to handle serpents or goat entrails.

It cannot be shown to be a religious ritual, Starling. Half of the world’s population take their shoes off when they enter a domicile.

2 Likes

Great day “hiking” today… right after work.

1 Like

But the complaint to the tribunal was on religious grounds - failure to observe/respect religious practice.

When you sue you put your “game face” on. Better Constitutional reinforcement in Religion.

1 Like

Don’t you go putting words in my mouth.

I’ll be my own advocate, TYVM.

Seems totally reasonable. If the landlord wanted to show my place without notice his buyers would be seeing DEEZ NUTS and my pale white ass as well. It is just common courtesy really…

If he doesn’t want to deal with these reasonable accommodations he can wait for the Muslim couple to move out and eat the rent for a few months while he finds a new tenant…

4 Likes

MrsLion and I are in the process of downsizing, which involves looking at prospective new housing.

We (well, our agent) always call for permission, (so far) we always visit when the residents are out, and we always take off our shoes.

Simple. Good. Manners.

1 Like

Here’s the counter hysteria for those interested in another perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITF0wVr1--A

Empty nest…how is it?

Liberating, yet lonely.

We are three or four weeks away from filling ours, and I imagine it will be the exact opposite for us.

1 Like

I surely hope your court decides this case on the merits while specifically rejecting the religious argument.

As I’ve pointed out already, the complaint itself was brought on the grounds of religious accommodation. It’s a religious issue so you cannot separate religion from the complaint or the ruling. These people felt their landlord violated their religious rights in their own home.

Yes, when I speak of deciding the case on its merits I mean to say the judge should tell the landlord “you have to be civil and courteous because there is a body of common law we are heirs to.” To the tenants he should say, “fuck you and the footwork you seek to do as agents of jihad…I will award damages in the amount of one week’s rent on your apartment…and you’re lucky I didn’t throw your case out of my courtroom for such bullshit.”

Or, if he wanted to REALLY make the point he should just throw the case out, period. And tell them it’s not a religious issue at all.

She. The judge was a woman in this case.

So the tenants are agents of jihad? They strike me as devoutly religious people who want to practice their religious beliefs in the peace of their own home and someone was coming in and disrupting their peaceful practice. How is any of this their fault?

I don’t want to channel CC LaSchmuck here on this forum, but in their choice to make it a religious matter rather than a civil one they are acting as agents of jihad. There is a civil remedy available to them already. If there were not, then their case might have merit as a religious liberty case.

What “civil remedy” is available to them?

The ones in long settled common law, about which I have already posted at length above.