Muslims Think They Should Be Allowed to Ban ‘Others’ From Public Cemetery

[Morpheus]

Why would Gypsies be buried in a cemetary? Aren't all Gypsies immortal, turning into giant, viscious wolves during full moons? Maybe it was Nick with his silver bullets.

Hey, if others can take the trait of one and extrapolate it to include an entire race of people, why can't I?

 

[Nick M]

Your title makes it sound like a majority of muslims support this.

It doesn't say that, but your post drifts there because they do.

It's like taking your thread about the Christian suing the bakery for not making anti-gay cakes and saying, "Christians think businesses should have no right of refusal. "

No, it isn't like that at all. Islam is despicable deviant behavior. And faggotry is evil despicable behavior. They are both in the wrong. It is not hypocritical to always oppose that which is evil. Much like opposing you, you faggot muslim supporter.

 

[shagster01]

It doesn't say that, but your post drifts there because they do.

That publication knew exactly what it was implying when it named that article. That's fine. It's just in bad taste.

Islam is despicable deviant behavior. And faggotry is evil despicable behavior. They are both in the wrong.

So what? That has nothing to do with the fact that this was one idiot family and it was one idiot man at the bakery, neither representing anything but themselves. It's a fair comparison.

It is not hypocritical to always oppose that which is evil. Much like opposing you,

:yawn:

you faggot muslim supporter.

False witness.

 

[Morpheus]

It doesn't say that, but your post drifts there because they do.



No, it isn't like that at all. Islam is despicable deviant behavior. And faggotry is evil despicable behavior. They are both in the wrong. It is not hypocritical to always oppose that which is evil. Much like opposing you, you faggot muslim supporter.

Since you are big on sports does that make you a huge athletic supporter, or is that a title better attributed to your Cardinals sweatshirt?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Muslims Think They Should Be Allowed to Ban ‘Others’ From Public Cemetery

(note: the bolded word blunder was added by me to replace a common british phrase there but inappropriate in the US so i defined its meaning as they mean it there with the word blunder instead)

The Original news article commentary based on where you can read all about it
:
Dispute over grave plots after burial of Gypsy



This is mind blowing to me. I agree with the blogger about this where he said

Thoughts?

I think our thinking may be the same on this.

If the family of the deceased Gypsy has no complaint being buried next to a deceased Muslim, but the family of the deceased Muslim has complaint being buried next to a deceased Gypsy, then it seems pretty clear who the prerogative falls on to move. If they are unwilling to move, then clearly they don't object strongly enough.

 

[This Charming Manc]

I don't think anyone is expecting anyone to be forced to move.

However I think its a bad call to try to create a negotiated settlement which is what the council appears to be doing.

The Muslim family appear in breach of a number of a number of UK race relations laws and should not be pandered too in any regard.

However personal history suggests believing a gypsy families stated view on the matter as Gospel is oftejn a flawed stance.

I think our thinking may be the same on this.

If the family of the deceased Gypsy has no complaint being buried next to a deceased Muslim, but the family of the deceased Muslim has complaint being buried next to a deceased Gypsy, then it seems pretty clear who the prerogative falls on to move. If they are unwilling to move, then clearly they don't object strongly enough.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

I don't think anyone is expecting anyone to be forced to move.

That's not the impression that I am getting from the news reporting.

Any bid to move human remains requires a licence from the Ministry’s officials. “The consents of all the next of kin of the deceased are normally required,” official guidance says. “The MoJ receives over 1,000 licence applications a year. Each will be considered on its merits, but applications made for private family reasons on behalf of the next of kin will, subject to any other necessary consents, normally be considered sympathetically.” But Mr Smith’s family have vowed to fight any move to relocate his remains. ... “We have been told we might have to exhume Shady if the council decide to side with them. There is no way Shady will be exhumed. If they suggest it, we will take them to the highest court in the land. We will fight tooth and nail to stop the grave being dug up.” Mr Smith’s family were warned by the council four days before his funeral that the owners of the plot adjacent to theirs had complained, but declined to amend their plans.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...-alongside-complain-he-was-an-unbeliever.html

However I think its a bad call to try to create a negotiated settlement which is what the council appears to be doing.

I agree.

The Muslim family appear in breach of a number of a number of UK race relations laws and should not be pandered too in any regard.

I'm not intimately familiar with UK race relations laws, which laws are they in breach of?

However personal history suggests believing a gypsy families stated view on the matter as Gospel is often a flawed stance.

The report makes no mention of the deceased gypsy's family complaining of the presence of an adjacent Muslim burial.

 

[musterion]

Give some Muslims an inch and eventually they'll take your head.