Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
The State of New York enforces Jewish law jberryhill May 2012 #1
Shocking though it might be, kosher is not the only Jewish "law." aquart May 2012 #11
The state of New York set up a school district just for Orthodox kids KamaAina May 2012 #43
Go ahead. aquart May 2012 #2
The "banning" of these types of laws is illogical treestar May 2012 #3
It's worse than illogical jberryhill May 2012 #4
Not really, because you'd need to label the pork as something other than pork Bluenorthwest May 2012 #7
And that's where you are wrong jberryhill May 2012 #9
Because you have to say it is not pork. Does the law allow one to sell beef as lamb? No. Bluenorthwest May 2012 #10
Nope, I sell it as "Halal pork" jberryhill May 2012 #13
And what of the jurisdictions with halal laws, which you claim do not exist? Bluenorthwest May 2012 #35
Then you are simply ignorant of the Kansas Law jberryhill May 2012 #40
Gee councilor surly, I said in my post I do not know what that law says. I said you might be right Bluenorthwest May 2012 #47
You've never been "snippy"? jberryhill May 2012 #50
Again, the personal nature of your attacks is not called for. Bluenorthwest May 2012 #54
All that means is "lawful" pork (or "fit/appropriate" pork). MADem May 2012 #53
Strangely enough, "halal" housewives won't be buying your "halal pork." aquart May 2012 #17
It was an extreme example jberryhill May 2012 #19
The fraudulent beef example is better for it lacks the I assume unintended implication Bluenorthwest May 2012 #38
Are they really applying Sharia law or just trying to come up with a definition? treestar May 2012 #22
The subsidiary fact question turns on a question of religious law jberryhill May 2012 #31
But it's still only applying that to a fact question within American law treestar May 2012 #52
The relevant text of the Kansas law.... jberryhill May 2012 #55
And it could add cases that wouldn't have been filed before treestar May 2012 #59
Orthodox Jews edhopper May 2012 #5
And your point? aquart May 2012 #18
The point is that that's why they aren't being targetted by legislation. (nt) Posteritatis May 2012 #66
one reason perhaps Sharia law is singled out and targeted for ban by repugs lunasun May 2012 #23
What does it say in the constitution? Rosa Luxemburg May 2012 #6
What about orthodox any law? nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #8
All religious law should be banned; Canon Law, Rabbinical Courts, and Sharia Law FarCenter May 2012 #12
So, you agree that courts should not enforce contracts or wills, right? jberryhill May 2012 #14
Contracts and Wills are religious laws? cleanhippie May 2012 #15
Simple jberryhill May 2012 #16
Unless kosher is a defined term in the commercial code of the state, it is unenforceable. FarCenter May 2012 #20
Hello, and welcome to the thread about "banning" religious law jberryhill May 2012 #24
The company that I formerly worked sold "Orthodox Union" certified products Nikia May 2012 #60
Yes, it is another religious racket FarCenter May 2012 #62
Funny, that is a civil case nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #21
So? jberryhill May 2012 #27
What part of fraud are you missing nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #49
When the determination of "fraud" depends on a determination of religious law jberryhill May 2012 #51
Usually Kosher products are certified Nikia May 2012 #61
The federal courts of New York didn't think so... jberryhill May 2012 #63
It's still deciding American law treestar May 2012 #25
Yes, you win the prize - "religious law" can be a subsidiary fact question jberryhill May 2012 #29
It is probably unenforceable as against public policy FarCenter May 2012 #37
Okay, but you get the point jberryhill May 2012 #42
Sticking strictly to your example, define "kosher" for the purposes of the court. cleanhippie May 2012 #28
The USDA doesn't have to set the guidelines jberryhill May 2012 #30
No, the question will be whether the defendant and the plaintiff are working from the same cleanhippie May 2012 #33
If I take you to court jberryhill May 2012 #44
The burden will be on you to prove that I did not fulfill my part of the contract. cleanhippie May 2012 #57
That's an easy burden to carry jberryhill May 2012 #58
You are also missing the HUGE elephant in the room - binding arbitration jberryhill May 2012 #36
You are now moving the goalposts. Stop adding conditions to try and meet your case. cleanhippie May 2012 #39
I did... jberryhill May 2012 #46
A sensible judge would require the spirits of the dead to show up and testify, or throw the case out WriteWrong May 2012 #64
That's not how cases involving arbitration enforcement work jberryhill May 2012 #65
actually, I don't believe any state has banned Sharia Law cali May 2012 #26
I stand corrected, thank you. no_hypocrisy May 2012 #32
your point is entirely valid cali May 2012 #41
Or Fundamentalist Christian Law obamanut2012 May 2012 #34
Sure right after libodem May 2012 #45
And yet these idiots see nothing ironic about trying to impose mythology May 2012 #48
All religious extremist law should be banned. Initech May 2012 #56
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»States are incrementally ...»Reply #32