Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
taxme

Christian fined $12,000 for not removing his shoes.

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Omni said:

I am still ahead but we somehow got into the wrong thread here.This one is not about Trump.

Never will you ever win with me, and take the lead. I know, and how the hell did that happen? No more Trump here for me. 

Edited by taxme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I'm not sure what the laws are regarding trespassing, but it seems fair to me that if you rent an apartment, since you are paying for it the only reason the landlord can enter without permission is for an emergency (like flood from plumbing, or what have you). Otherwise it's private property and they have to abide by your wishes.

Even as regards police entry into a home without a warrant, they cannot enter unless the resident permits it. Except for extenuating circumstances of course.

A fine of $12,000 is completely ridiculous given the circumstances. Hopefully the person can appeal this decision.

And which lucky Canadian will be next to have the pleasure of being handed a sharia law fine here in Canada? This is what they call "creeping sharia". Bit by bit they will get their sharia law implemented in Canada, and thanks to that unelected communist outfit called the HRC this will surely happen again and again. This guy should never have been given a fine of $12,000 for walking on someone's carpet. It is so bloody ridiculous to allow such a thing to happen right here in Canada. This dam country and it's politically correct multicultural nonsense is destroying our beliefs and values and ways of doing things. And if this bull is allowed to continue on Canada as we once knew it will be gone forever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HRC has managed to be quite balanced in the type of religion they accommodate. 

But I guess it's more sexy to run around screaming and posting sensationalized articles, that tries to turn a legitimate case and ruling into some kind of SHARIA IS TAKING OVER alert.

Edited by marcus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, marcus said:

HRC has managed to be quite balanced in the type of religion they accommodate. 

But I guess it's more sexy to run around screaming and posting sensationalized articles, that tries to turn a legitimate case and ruling into some kind of SHARIA IS TAKING alert.

For a first impaired driving offence in Canada the mandatory minimum fine is $1000.  This guy got a $12000 fine for giving offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

For a first impaired driving offence in Canada the mandatory minimum fine is $1000.  This guy got a $12000 fine for giving offence.

This is a bushcheney-esque comparison. Should I comeback with some penalty that I may deem less severe that has a much higher fine to counter you?

The point of the original post was to feed the hysteria that Islam is taking over Canada and that the HRC is at the forefront of allowing that to happen.

You want to argue that the fine is too much, go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, marcus said:

This is a bushcheney-esque comparison. Should I comeback with some penalty that I may deem less severe that has a much higher fine to counter you?

The point of the original post was to feed the hysteria that Islam is taking over Canada and that the HRC is at the forefront of allowing that to happen.

You want to argue that the fine is too much, go for it.

Sure, fill your boots.  I'm not going to promise to read it.

The point of the the original post (I thought) was to illustrate how ridiculous Human Rights Councils are.  Did a good job.

 

Edit>  I suppose it could be argued, that because Islam was involved, you are the one feeding the hysteria that Islam is taking over Canada and that the HRC is at the forefront of allowing that to happen.

 

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

For a first impaired driving offence in Canada the mandatory minimum fine is $1000.  This guy got a $12000 fine for giving offence.

He didn't merely give offense, he failed a duty to accommodate.  As a landlord, he is more akin to a business owner or employer than just a random guy on the street or even a neighbor.   A private citizen can refuse to let people into his or her home because they are the wrong skin color or have a physical disability, but a landlord cannot refuse to rent to someone for the same reason.  Your unwilingness to recognize that a landlord-tenant relationship is different from a relationship between private citizens is why you don't understand the reason for such a high award.

I agree that drunk drivers should have higher penalties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dialamah said:

He didn't merely give offense, he failed a duty to accommodate.  As a landlord, he is more akin to a business owner or employer than just a random guy on the street or even a neighbor.   A private citizen can refuse to let people into his or her home because they are the wrong skin color or have a physical disability, but a landlord cannot refuse to rent to someone for the same reason.  Your unwilingness to recognize that a landlord-tenant relationship is different from a relationship between private citizens is why you don't understand the reason for such a high award.

I agree that drunk drivers should have higher penalties.

Well, we went over this once already.  It's bollocks to me.  But not to you.

I find that $6,000 to each applicant is an appropriate amount to compensate them for the injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect caused by the respondent’s actions in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Well, we went over this once already.  It's bollocks to me.  But not to you.

I find that $6,000 to each applicant is an appropriate amount to compensate them for the injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect caused by the respondent’s actions in this case.

Sharia law in Canada will be coming to your neighborhood very soon. Be careful what you do around Muslims. They will look for any excuse to have some infidel that offends them to have them fork over some extra cash sharia fines. Oh the joys of diversity and multiculturalism. I wonder what infidel will be next? Maybe it will be you. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, taxme said:

Sharia law in Canada will be coming to your neighborhood very soon. Be careful what you do around Muslims. They will look for any excuse to have some infidel that offends them to have them fork over some extra cash sharia fines. Oh the joys of diversity and multiculturalism. I wonder what infidel will be next? Maybe it will be you. :D 

It depends what you mean by Sharia Law.  I'm sure there are lots of people in Canada for whom Sharia is the final word on many issues.

It'll never happen for me though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2017 at 6:00 PM, bcsapper said:

It depends what you mean by Sharia Law.  I'm sure there are lots of people in Canada for whom Sharia is the final word on many issues.

It'll never happen for me though...

Never say never. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/07/2017 at 1:08 PM, dialamah said:

He didn't merely give offense, he failed a duty to accommodate.  As a landlord, he is more akin to a business owner or employer than just a random guy on the street or even a neighbor.   A private citizen can refuse to let people into his or her home because they are the wrong skin color or have a physical disability, but a landlord cannot refuse to rent to someone for the same reason.  Your unwilingness to recognize that a landlord-tenant relationship is different from a relationship between private citizens is why you don't understand the reason for such a high award.

I agree that drunk drivers should have higher penalties.

Yes to that re drunk drivers, typically repeat chronic offenders.

Regarding this case, it was also repeated offences and he seemed determined to defy their wishes.

Also, that last incident of him slamming the snow shovel around loudly sounded like threat and intimidation to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎06 at 7:35 AM, dialamah said:

The couple asked for an extra hours notice so they wouldn't have their prayer time interrupted, and they asked the landlord and prospective tenants to remove their shoes when viewing the unit.   

Who doesn't remove their shoes when entering someone's home, unless specifically invited not to?  And if someone would prefer not to be interrupted during a private time, whether it's prayer time, bath time or something more intimate, why should that be a problem?  If this landlord really was a Christian, why wouldn't he treat the couple and their home with respect?   Claiming that this couple was trying to impose their way of life on him, in the privacy of their own home in which he is a visitor is ludicrous, even if he was an invited visitor.

I would say the HR was absolutely correct in their assessment, though $12,000 does seem like a lot and I doubt it will dent this guy's stupidity.

 I agree with most of what you said but the money part seems a bit strange .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...