June 12, 2012, - 2:49 pm

Muslim Wanna-be Cop Sues NYPD: Denied Job After Saying “Gays Are Criminals”

By Debbie Schlussel

Let’s hear it for Islamic “tolerance.” A Muslim tells a mental health professional that he thinks all gay are criminals, so he loses his chance to be a New York City cop. He’s suing the NYPD, using an “evil Zionist” Jewish lawyer, of course. But, per usual, you aren’t hearing any outcry from the gay community. After all, whenever Muslims oppose them–or behead them, as Egypt did to a whole raft of passengers who went on a gay cruise–the gay community would prefer to attack Christians. As I pointed out, Muslims supported California’s Proposition 8 outlawing gay marriage, and, yet, gays only attacked Mormon churches, not mosques. And so it goes with the case of a Pakistani Muslim who cowardly refuses to name himself in a lawsuit he filed:

gaymuslims.jpg

Behead Those Who Wear Lavender

A Pakistani Muslim is suing the NYPD because he says he was denied admission to the Police Academy in part because he told a police shrink that gays are “criminals.”


The 23-year-old applicant, who is from Brooklyn but was not identified in court papers, argues in a suit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court that the NYPD violated his constitutional right to religious freedom by asking for his views on homosexuality.

His lawyer, Jerold Levine, said that in a 2009 written application the man answered “yes” to the question: “Should homosexuals be locked up?”

In a followup interview, the applicant told an NYPD psychologist that homosexuality is “against his religion” and that “homosexuals are criminals.”

Departmental brass decided “this bias” could have “significant disruptive consequences” for dealing with gays on the street and within the NYPD, court papers show. For those reasons, as well as his work and academic record, he was rejected on two occasions.

The applicant, who serves as an auxiliary cop, wants the NYPD to reconsider its decision.

I can’t wait until he sues over his “religious freedom” to behead and honor kill people at whim.

Lawyer Jerold Levine, who whored himself out to take this case, surely knows that if this schmuck openly said that about gays, he doesn’t like Jews or Blacks too much either.

Reader/lawyer Jon E. Grant:

Now, which group will the politically correct offend? The Muslims or the gays?

Good question. Let the Purple Jihad and Rainbow allah decide.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

45 Responses

I am a retired NYPD police officer – and if I was EVER assigned to an RMP (Patrol Car) with this character, I would immediately notify the patrol supervisor that I could’t work with this person due to my fear that he wouldn’t assist in time of need. We weren’t allowed to wear the US/Israeli Flag above our shields as not to offend anyone. So any disputes that may wind up involving those of different sects, or of Indian persuasion, even entering a job where Hasidim are fighting – how would he be impartial? He wouldn’t – and what if he is flown (temp assignment) into the Sixth Precinct for the night? That’s Greenwich Village. This is just a law suit for the $$.

CB on June 12, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    You do sound like a professional, and your course of action would be more than appropriate. An individual displaying such an open prejudice against another group to the extent that they deem them to be criminal has no place in law enforcement, or any other government entity. Also, it is almost certain that you would discover other disquieting tendencies in your new Pakistani partner, such as a loathing of Jews and a deep disrespect for women. Police departments have enough problems without opening the doors to such bad apples. Also, if this person is a reserve officer, as noted in the article, he needs to be stripped of that position as well. Finally, if this suit is settled for money, that will open a floodgate of copycat suits.

    Worry01 on June 12, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    We just need to knuckle under. These fake feelings muzzies claim are more important than EVERYONE ELSE’S RIGHTBTO LIVE

    As goes... on June 12, 2012 at 10:40 pm

By Debbie Schlussel

mamethov on June 12, 2012 at 3:56 pm

    You should have someone read these posts for you. It was a twenty-three year old Pakistani bringing this suit, and not Debbie Schlussel. It is sad to see what sniffing petrol fumes does to a mind.

    Worry01 on June 12, 2012 at 5:29 pm

I don’t think this shakedown has much merit. Would any one be defending this guy’s homophobic views if he was not a Pakistani Muslim? That’s a good question.

Jerold Levine needed a “diversity quota” case. Good luck with his lawsuit on behalf of Client “X”.

NormanF on June 12, 2012 at 4:02 pm

Well, well, what a surprise. Another DS thread knocking Muslims and being supported by the likes of Norman F.

Whatever you may think of Muslims’ views on gays (which I do not sympathise with) I have never noticed DS or any of her “fans” showing any interest in gay rights, or womens’ rights, or any other equality issues, except as an excuse for bashing Muslims, or other people who you demonise as “liberals”.

C J Walters on June 12, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    Actually, you do not notice much CJ. We have seen that before. Also, it is more than appropriate to point out that the Gay Community virtually ignores really heinous and murderous acts against gays in Muslim countries, while targeting Christians who merely oppose gay marriage. In addition, Debbie does not have to bash Muslims, they do it to themselves everyday. This Pakistani is just the latest in a long line Islamic beauties who have who have harassed others or engaged in violence on our shores. It is also significant that the Pakistani, who brings up his faith as the reason for his bias, is too cowardly even to place his actual name on the complaint. This guy is sure witnessing for his faith. He is putting a bag over Allah by being anonymous.

    Worry01 on June 12, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    CJW, you continue to promote Islam, the “religion” of theft, slavery, and murder. Please, don’t think you’ll get any points here–even with me–for a seemingly pro-gay stance.

    skzion on June 12, 2012 at 5:53 pm

      I have said before, and have said it here again, that I am not a supporter of Islam, on gay rights or anything else. Nor am I a Jew-hater, as you alleged elsewhere. I was simply drawing attention to the double standards that people like you apply on these matters.

      C J Walters on June 12, 2012 at 6:49 pm

        I don’t believe you, CJW. You can “say” whatever you wish.

        skzion on June 12, 2012 at 7:05 pm

          And you can believe what you want, apparently without producing any evidence whatever.

          C J Walters on June 13, 2012 at 4:31 am

        As for double standards, you should envy those who have them. You possess none whatsoever. You can keep braying, since it is good for a laugh at least.

        Worry on June 12, 2012 at 7:31 pm

Now, I’m in agreement with Jews, Christians and Muslims about homosexuality. There’s no dispute among followers of the Abrahamic religions about the morally corrosive effects of the gay lifestyle.

That said, I’m not one of those who favors beheading gays. What people do in the bedroom is their business. Its when they use their sexuality to advance a political agenda that I think they’ve crossed the boundaries of propriety.

And I do believe for the record, marriage is reserved for a man and a woman. I hold that view regardless of whether Muslims also endorse it.

NormanF on June 12, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    NormanF sez:

    (1) “Now, I’m in agreement with Jews, Christians and Muslims about homosexuality. There’s no dispute among followers of the Abrahamic religions …”

    Good grief, Norman, I am astounded that you could think that Islam is an Abrahamic religion. Or at least you can think this momentarily when the issue is homosexuality.

    (2) “What people do in the bedroom is their business. Its [sic] when they use their sexuality to advance a political agenda that I think they’ve crossed the boundaries of propriety.”

    I have challenged this kind of comment several times already, when you’ve made it and when Debbie has made it. Since you are not Polish and not Muslim, surely you should have processed my previous criticism.

    The issue is not what people do in their own bedroom. One’s preferred sexual positions are, of course, a private matter. At least they should be. Instead, the issue is precisely what goes on in the public sphere. Heteros can walk hand in hand in public; they can have public wedding announcements; have photos of their sexual partner on a desk; and so on. THERE IS NOTHING “IMPROPER” OR “PRIVATE” ABOUT “SEXUALITY” WHEN IT IS HETEROSEXUALITY. Heterosexuality is flaunted as a matter of course. No, issues of “propriety” and “privacy” amount to a demand for secrecy by heteros against non-heteros.

    Further, the idea that only heteros should have access to politics (i.e., “to advance a political agenda”) is, similarly, outrageous. Those who avoid politics have no opportunity to make things change. I would not deny anyone this opportunity, and the Constitution explicitly guarantees it to American citizens.

    You need not agree with me, of course, but you do need to address the points I bring up in the future or become an honorary Pole.

    skzion on June 12, 2012 at 5:50 pm

      I nowhere wrote that gays don’t have the right to participate in our democracy. I did write that people shouldn’t use their sexuality to promote a political agenda. I feel that properly speaking who you marry, live with or love is no one else’s business. Its indecent to politicize our own identities or to need others’ approval for them.

      We’ve lost sight of the difference between public life and private life. What we ought to do is reinforce that line. We don’t need a Leftist Sharia any more than we need an Islamic one.

      NormanF on June 12, 2012 at 6:35 pm

        “I nowhere wrote that gays don’t have the right to participate in our democracy. I did write that people shouldn’t use their sexuality to promote a political agenda.”

        This means . . . that you believe that gays should not engage in politics related to being gay. This is indeed a serious limitation of participation. What you call “a political agenda” is simply political activity which you disagree with. But self-interested pluralism, whatever its defects, is central to our democratic republic (we do not have a “democracy”).

        “I feel that properly speaking who you marry, live with or love is no one else’s business.”

        Yes, you no doubt “feel” this, but I am not dealing with feelings but with arguments–with thoughts. I have pointed out that, if one is hetero, who one marries, lives with, or loves is EVERYONE’S business. It is public information. Only for gay people is such information “no one else’s business.”

        “Its indecent to politicize our own identities or to need others’ approval for them.”

        Norman, every law that relates to (hetero-only) marriage is “political,” as “politics” refers to the authoritative allocation of values, where “values” are both normative (what is right) and economic (that which is valued). Your identity is already thoroughly “politicized,” so much so that you do not even see it.

        But if you really are referring to “political action,” then I’d say that there is no need for such action when heterosexuality is assumed and promoted, directly and indirectly.

        “We’ve lost sight of the difference between public life and private life.”

        Yes, Norman, but I am arguing that your view of what counts as “public” depends on sexual orientation. If one is hetero, one’s sexual orientation is “public”; if one is homo, one’s sexual orientation is “private” and is supposed to be secret. Sorry, but that just won’t do. I will not accept the manipulation of public/private so as to enforce a hetero-only public sphere.

        “We don’t need a Leftist Sharia any more than we need an Islamic one.”

        On this, at least, we agree. I support full citizenship for gay people. I am awfully tired of those who blame gays for the wreckage of American society, or who issue “reform” suggestions that focus on gays.

        As you know, I have no love for the overall politics of gay activists. This politics is overwhelmingly leftist. I also have no love for Affirmative Action, but I would not support fewer rights for blacks.

        NormanF on June 12, 2012 at 6:35 pm

        skzion on June 12, 2012 at 7:04 pm

          “This means . . . that you believe that gays should not engage in politics related to being gay. This is indeed a serious limitation of participation. What you call “a political agenda” is simply political activity which you disagree with. But self-interested pluralism, whatever its defects, is central to our democratic republic (we do not have a “democracy”).”

          What the heck does sexuality have to do with politics? Again who we marry, sleep with and choose for our life partner is not public business, period. That goes for both gays and heteros.

          “Yes, you no doubt “feel” this, but I am not dealing with feelings but with arguments–with thoughts. I have pointed out that, if one is hetero, who one marries, lives with, or loves is EVERYONE’S business. It is public information. Only for gay people is such information “no one else’s business.”

          If you mean notices of weddings, the simple thing is to keep the information private. I have no objection to the public announcement of gay unions – the same rule should apply to every one, without exception.

          “Norman, every law that relates to (hetero-only) marriage is “political,” as “politics” refers to the authoritative allocation of values, where “values” are both normative (what is right) and economic (that which is valued). Your identity is already thoroughly “politicized,” so much so that you do not even see it.”

          Its true the law recognizes marriage as a heterosexual union. There is nothing discriminatory about it. A gay man or a lesbian woman is always free to marry someone of the opposite sex. The law establishes what we consider to be the delimnited nature of our basic institution.

          “But if you really are referring to “political action,” then I’d say that there is no need for such action when heterosexuality is assumed and promoted, directly and indirectly.”

          The given customs of society – no one has taken issue with them until fairly recently. They define who are we are and what we believe in.

          “Yes, Norman, but I am arguing that your view of what counts as “public” depends on sexual orientation. If one is hetero, one’s sexual orientation is “public”; if one is homo, one’s sexual orientation is “private” and is supposed to be secret. Sorry, but that just won’t do. I will not accept the manipulation of public/private so as to enforce a hetero-only public sphere.”

          One’s sexual orientation is private. Like Debbie, I’m opposed to public displays of affection. So gays don’t need to feel excluded. Again, the same rule applies every one so there is no issue of discrimination or exclusion.

          NormanF on June 12, 2012 at 7:57 pm

          Norman (NormanF on June 12, 2012 at 7:57 pm), I think we’re talking past each other.

          skzion on June 13, 2012 at 5:36 pm

Answer to Jon’s exit question – the PC crowd will always offend the other group that Muslims are against, for 2 reasons:

1. The Muslims are thoroughly anti-American – much more than Gays, Feminists, Liberals, Environmental wackos, PETA activists and so on. So if they’re going to pick any side, it’ll be the Muslim side.

2. Although they wouldn’t be caught dead admitting it, in a manner of speaking, subconsciously they are a lot more terrified of Muslims than they are of thugs from any of the other groups listed above. While the other groups don’t have a suicidal tendency while trying to destroy their enemies, the Muslims do, and even w/o admitting it, the PC crowd knows it only too well.

Normally, the Islamic punishment for homosexuality is not beheading, but rather throwing them to their deaths from tall towers, or mountain ledges, or so on.

Incidentally, the Islamic opposition to homosexuality is different from the Christian or Jewish opposition to it. The Christian or Jewish opposition seems to be more against sex acts, such as sodomy, kissing, and other sexual acts b/w 2 men or 2 women. But there is no opposition to homosexuals from these groups when there is no sexual activity involved. For instance, for civil unions, there are a lot of gay couples not so much interested in sex as much as they are in things like hospital visits, inheritance rights and so on. Such couples can be emotionally involved w/ each other w/o being involved in sex acts, w/o raising the ire of Christian or Jewish groups.

In contrast, in Islam, as long as 2 men or 2 women do not have an emotional relationship, they are safe. They can indulge in homosexual sex acts all they want, as well as in kiddy porn and so on. When Muslims talk about taking on homosexuality, it’s the civil unions that they are targetting – gay men arranging for their inheritance, or hospital visitations and so on.

In other words, the parts about homosexual people that Christians and Jews are not opposed to are the parts that Muslims oppose. The parts that the Christians and Jews do oppose, Muslims have no problems w/ them unless and until an emotional bonding is there.

So it’s wrong to equate the Christian and Jewish views on homosexuality w/ that of Muslims. They’re as different as pasta and falafel.

Infidel on June 12, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    Jewish law prescribes the death penalty for a homosexual sex act.

    Much of Islam is a rip-off of Jewish law but without the safeguards and compassion Judaism built in over time to ameliorate the harsh edicts of the Torah.

    They all do acknowledge Abraham as their common father so my statement is correct. But they all as you pointed out, interpreted his legacy quite differently.

    The problem with Islam is it criminalizes people’s private thoughts and personal behavior. If it left people alone to live their own lives, we would have nothing to worry about. Its insistence on regulating the minutest aspects of human life that Judaism and Christianity leave to the believer’s conscience is what makes it uniquely fanatical, intolerant and totalitarian in nature.

    Islam is much like Mordor and the endless sea of Orcs. We have enough trouble fending off those who aid and abet the enemy from within to find the unity to fight it in the places where its the strongest. Unlike with Mordor, there is no shortcut that will guarantee us a victory over Islam in this world.

    NormanF on June 12, 2012 at 6:20 pm

      “Jewish law prescribes the death penalty for a homosexual sex act.”

      C’mon Norman. That which counts as “a homosexual sex act” is itself unclear in the two relevant places in Leviticus. Halacha also prescribes the death penalty for all sorts of things that are regularly done. However, the only time the Orthodox are moved to make common cause with Muslims is when gay people are involved. You don’t find this a bit, uh, odd?

      In addition, as you know full well, Halacha is expected to change in response to science. I await real rabbis (who are not to be paid for their services) who take on this area of Halacha, which has been avoided from the beginning.

      “They all do acknowledge Abraham as their common father so my statement is correct. But they all as you pointed out, interpreted his legacy quite differently.”

      Muslims do not acknowledge Abraham, but Ibrahim, who was a Muslim, of course. Similarly, Muslims do not acknowledge Jesus. You know all this, Norman. Islam is a mishmash of moon worship (Allah, the moon god of Mo’s family) with admixtures of Xtianity and Judaism for the purpose of jihad. At its core, Islam is not an Abrahamic religion, and we should not be persuaded otherwise by Muslims assertions to the contrary.

      I agree, though, that Islam is much like Mordor.

      Overall, I suggest to you, as an empirical generalization, that when homosexuality is the topic, the level of discussion goes way down.

      skzion on June 12, 2012 at 6:40 pm

        My point is Judaism got modified over time in response to changing circumstances.

        Islam hasn’t changed since the 7th Century.

        Islam sees Abraham as the perfect Muslim. They apprehended his piety but forgot his humanity and compassion.

        If you believe religion has all the answers and we never need to learn for ourselves become Muslim. If you believe that the great unsolved questions will always exist for mankind then follow another religion.

        As for homosexuality, I’m quite clear on its moral status. But I’m so equally clear that we don’t punish people for their private behavior and if its wrong then that’s between them and G-d.

        Sure I have a complicated view on the subject but life isn’t one where we have all the answers and few of us want to be that Pakistani Muslim who think he knows the “right way” to deal with gays.

        NormanF on June 12, 2012 at 6:52 pm

        C’mon skzion, what’s ambiguous about “if a man lies with another man s with a woman” ? But it’s significant to note, it is the ACT not the orientation that is objectionable.

        Italkit on June 13, 2012 at 1:28 pm

          And yes, your points about the ULTRA Orthodox are well taken but the only reason we don’t behead homosexuals and others is because we have no Sanhedrin, no High Priest and no Prophets to reveal the absolute truth so while you, skzion, may feel put upon, you are getting off lightly for now. If Moshiach comes before you pass over, it may not go as well for you and your brethren. Be glad that these ORTHODOX rabbis you love to vilify chose to take the more compassionate route of simply condemning the acts with out judging and punishing specific actors.

          Italkit on June 13, 2012 at 1:33 pm

          What’s “ambiguous,” Italkit? Well, “if a man lies with another man as with a woman” is not the original language of Leviticus, which was not written in modern English, for starters. So the precise act that is being banned is not clear. Details do count. Indeed, the voluminous commentary, and commentary on commentary, means very clearly that one cannot read the Pentatuch as if it were part of a Protestant church service.

          My major point, though, was that lots of acts are listed as capital offenses, but THOSE acts do not lead the Orthodox to join forces with Muslims against fellow Jews. I ask why that might be. Why does one capital offense unite Jews with the Bnei Amalek against fellow Jews, while the rest are met with mere head shaking?

          “And yes, your points about the ULTRA Orthodox are well taken…”

          Not just the ultras. Reading is fundamental, Italkit. So far as I know, NormanF is not Haredi.

          “but the only reason we don’t behead homosexuals and others is because we have no Sanhedrin, no High Priest and no Prophets to reveal the absolute truth”

          What is the basis for your claim? Capital punishment was effectively ended while there was a Sanhedrin and a Temple. The reason was that Jewish life, being a supreme value, would have been ended by execution many, many times if the laws on capital crimes were actually carried out. At a time when immorality was so widespread, rigid implementation was considered too bloody. Indeed, while there was a Sanhedrin, the requirements for execution, involving trustworthy witnesses to the act (two, as I recall), a prior warning to be given, etc., were made so onerous that it was almost never carried out.

          “so while you, skzion, may feel put upon, you are getting off lightly for now. If Moshiach comes before you pass over, it may not go as well for you and your brethren.”

          I expect that you are getting off pretty lightly yourself. It is basically impossible to comply fully with the mitzvot. Those in Israel, however, have grievously sinned for decades because they (you) have not fulfilled the first three mitzvot upon returning to the Land. I refer you to Rambam’s Mishneh Torah for details.

          “Be glad that these ORTHODOX rabbis you love to vilify chose to take the more compassionate route of simply condemning the acts with out judging and punishing specific actors.”

          I don’t recognize “rabbis” unless they are Orthodox. However, the Rambam made clear that rabbis should not be paid for their religious services, let alone being paid by a government. Israel’s rabbinut in particular is an outrage. A bunch of corrupt and generally unintelligent operatives who pick on those that are easy targets while having nothing to say about the Amalekites who endanger and destroy Jewish lives on a daily basis in Israel. If “vilify” them because they are villains. That the rest of the political stratum in Israel also engages in villainy is no excuse. So, don’t think that I am giving any part of your whole rotten system a break.

          Thanks.

          skzion on June 13, 2012 at 5:30 pm

The bottom line is that a policemen is supposed to defend all citizenry, and homosexuals are like everyone else when they need police assistance. If someone wants to cut their head off instead of assisting them, then that person should not be on the police force.

Like one reader above noted, the PC crowd is most likely going to side with the Muslim because he is anti-Semitic.

Jonathan E. Grant on June 12, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    Gays are not above putting leftist ideology over their own rights. As much as I want to agree with Debbie they should both sort it out, I think you’re right that when it comes to the bottom line, the Left, gays included, will side with Islam.

    Its not even a close call here and just wait until CAIR gets involved.

    NormanF on June 12, 2012 at 6:28 pm

Your illiteracy is quite stunning. Why not have your caregiver post this little anti-Debbie rant for you? What you have produced would lead to your repeating the third grade in an elementary school.

Worry01 on June 12, 2012 at 5:26 pm

Unfortunately there were many anti-Americans who came out of the 60s, but Jane Fonda was one of the worst. I have always boycotted her movies, along with those of other anti-Americans. Really limits the choices I have, but I would cringe looking at such trash.

Little Al on June 12, 2012 at 5:33 pm

Naturally, I am utterly disgusted at pro-Muslim gays. I was not among those who only criticized the Mormons for the California proposition.

However, I doubly condemn any Xtian, Mormon, or Jew who makes an alliance with Muslims for any purpose except to undermine Islam.

skzion on June 12, 2012 at 6:03 pm

You can be damn sure that Hamas-tied Ku Klux Kair will be involved soon.

Rocky Lore on June 12, 2012 at 6:07 pm

The sexism is quite telling.

Oh and do tell us if you would dish out that treatment to liberal women.

I would think not.

NormanF on June 12, 2012 at 6:22 pm

Nice blog you have here Norman & skzion. Enough is too much.

#1 Vato on June 12, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    That debate is getting pretty far off topic. I do have a feeing that the city will not settle with he Pakisritani, since it would merely lead to a deluge of lawsuits. Also, the applicant freely disclosed his opinion of gays. There was no trickery or invasion of privacy involved in the examination.

    Worry on June 12, 2012 at 7:42 pm

Skzion and I have our differences – but we do agree on some things.

Hey – if you don’t like what is posted on this blog, feel free to go elsewhere. No one is forcing you to view it.

NormanF on June 12, 2012 at 7:45 pm

Start your own GD blog and I will read it. No one is forcing you to eschew your esoteric cogitations ad infinitum via DS…I want to read Debbie.

#1 Vato on June 12, 2012 at 9:39 pm

    #1 Vato, you’re out of line. My back-and-forth with NormanF is fully appropriate here. If Debbie doesn’t want discussion among her readers, she can eliminate the “Submit Comment” button. If you prefer not to read this discussion, you can skip it. My purpose here is not just to applaud Debbie, even if this is YOUR purpose.

    skzion on June 13, 2012 at 5:02 pm

This – or any – Muslim applicant who wants a job in law enforcement should have been asked whether he/she believes in upholding the primacy and legitimacy of Constitutional law, versus Shari’a, or whether the applicant’s wish is to see Shari’a supplanting and replacing our existing laws. If the applicant expresses support for the latter, then he/she should automatically be rejected as a candidate. Such a question is even more fundamental than what the candidate’s views are concerning homosexuality. The same principle should apply for Muslim candidates wishing to join the military; a related issue concerns the Muslim applicant’s willingness to engage in U.S. military operations against foreign Muslim forces.

commonsense on June 12, 2012 at 11:46 pm

or behead them, as Egypt did to a whole raft of passengers who went on a gay cruise.

When did that happen?

Miranda Rose Smith on June 13, 2012 at 6:00 am

How in the hell is the FBI supposed to find terrorists,when they waste there time doing this? FBI investigating fire, anti-Arab graffiti near Dearborn mosque

http://www.freep.com/article/20120613/NEWS02/120613007/FBI-probing-fire-anti-Arab-graffiti-near-mosque-Dearborn?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

sal on June 13, 2012 at 9:16 am

OMG are you a hater of everything. Seriously it’s his opinion don’t try to think your posts are going to change the world!

Maria on June 16, 2012 at 5:37 pm

Yeah ISN’T THAT WHY THEY GIVE PSYCH EVALUATIONS? To weed out the total nutsacks? I’m PRETTY SURE you’re not allowed to sue for discrimination if you fail the psychological evaluation, and I’m also pretty sure they do everything they can to weed out racists, black panthers, aryan brotherhood, bigots, bullies, woman haters, power crazy loony tunes, abusers, people with short fuses who erupt into violent or uncontrolled ways (every fucking Paki on the planet, by the way), psychos, people who don’t live in ‘reality’ AND people who think GAYS SHOULD BE EXECUTED. YEAH, I’M PRETTY SURE THEY DON’T LIKE COPS TO HAVE THAT OPINION. and I’m HOPING they give intelligence tests as well and WISH in my DREAMS they would test people for severe inbreeding that could genetically damage their impulse control and emotional stability. Considering 67% of all paki marriages are within the family. I think pakistan has a consanguinity rate of 50 !!!

We have enough police with power issues, authority issues, we don’t need some filthy paki’s given guns and badges and sent out there to assault or kill GAYS. SCREW HIM, if the courts decide in his favor I am OFFICIALLY renouncing my american citizenship as soon as my European country of choices gives me one there.

Rebecca Olesen on June 20, 2012 at 3:12 pm

Okay I just read this article and the comments all have some good arguments but what I don’t not understand why some people can’t face the fact that this article is based on one mans opinion, all though it may not be a good one to many but nonetheless it’s still his opinion, and this one mans opinion doesn’t represent every other Muslims opinion about gay and gay marriages. It was just last I believe that a law was passed for gay marriage to be illegal. However gays have been fighting for their rights for over 50 years. Gays were frowned upon by a lot of religions whether it was christans, Catholics, Jewish, or Muslims. Many people even thought that gays should be killed or sacrificed or burn in hell and that is because people with these types of opinions were raised to think like that, because you don’t just out of now where start hating a type of people, like me I believe everyone should have rights no matter what type of sex they like, what type of religion they are, or what color their skin is! I mean I people wouldn’t care about this mans opinion if he wasn’t Muslims, but hey like I said Everyone’s intitled to their own opinion.

Sarah Wright on June 21, 2012 at 2:08 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field