Recent content by *d*

Thanks Squad. Pics are of Amanda Saccomanno and I doubt she is escorting in Hamilton. lol

Backpage ad in Hamilton. Pics look unbelievable: http://hamilton.backpage.ca/FemaleEscorts/289-975-1629-new-in-town-hot-bombshell-seductive-juicy-horny/42390602

That's correct. Things don't have a religious designation without subjective belief. A beard is not religious on its own. It needs belief to make it religious. The Bible is only a story book without Christians. As a religious neutral observer you can agree or disagree with those beliefs if you...

Sorry, Tarek doesn't objectively say what others do and think. That's what you do. Tarek expresses his valid religious subjective belief that happens to conflict with some other belief. That's not lying in the world of religious expression. Welcome to religious pluralism.

Where are the citizens that claim its not a public place? I see the 'nay'ers don't have a say in this example either.

And my God is the only God. It's called freedom of religious expression. It's you that's wants to deny that freedom and discredit someone else's subjective religious belief with your bias objectivity. Now, that's a no no.

But nothing is religious without subjective belief. You continue to think like an arbiter, drawing a bias objective conclusion by simply viewing some subjective beliefs. Your bias opinion is not the voice of everyone. The courts can not and will not determine the objectiveness of a subjective...

And what has this got to do with the fact that the court does not objectively access a person's religious belief to any religious precept recognized by others? They don't care about other people's perception of the belief. They don't take a census of others to determine rulings of an...

Even if fuji considers himself an arbiter of religious dogma, the courts of Canada do not. The courts do not access whether a person’s religious belief objectively corresponds to a religious precept recognized by others. Fuji’s bias objective survey would mean nothing to them. Religious belief...

Don't spread bs. It's subjective whether the niqab is or is not religious attire. It depends on who is wearing it or who believes in it. Jason Kenney is not wearing religious attire if he believes he is not. If he was wearing a beard, would it be a religious beard? Not unless he believes it is...

Tarek's belief tells him that it's not religious and so to him it's not worn in accord with religious practice. It's his religious interpretation and very much subjective. Whether the hijab/niqab is or is not religious attire is a matter of religious belief and is not what the courts...

And it is also an empirical fact that there are people who exist that reject that belief in accord with their own religious practice. Follow the thread through. It's been discussed. Tarek claims his belief as a religious truth backed by a religious interpretation. Like any religious truth it is...

Sorry, but it's you that's drawing a bias conclusion. A bias conclusion is subjective in nature. It's quite obvious the two beliefs on the hijab can be observed objectively. So courts will be objective and won't be bias. Each belief will be recognized and have their rights protected.

The phrase is there. It's not surprising fuji didn't read the whole article. He didn't read the whole first Tarek article on this thread until about the 10th page.

It means your comment: "Whether or not something is religious attire is not a religious belief." is nonsense. It is religious belief that determines when something becomes religious or not. Not some outside observer. They can only watch and make opinions of their own. They can not determine what...