View Full Version : Moslem Sues Employer for Giving Him Reward

Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 09:28 AM

Wine 'offensive'

A Muslim insurance salesman, Imran Khan, 25, took offence when his employer offered bottles of wine as a reward for good performance. He is suing Direct Line insurance in Bristol for racial and religious discrimination, claiming that the offer of alcohol, which he is not allowed to drink, made him feel excluded.

Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 09:29 AM
Can anyone blame firms for not wanting to employ Muslims anymore? They clearly are a liability... if not security threat.

Death and the Sun
Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 11:24 AM
Sometimes it seems that pandering and pampering immigrants teaches them to behave like spoiled babies.


So you are going to sue yuor employer because you feel "excluded" ?!? Maybe you feel excluded because you DON'T BELONG HERE.

Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 11:28 AM
Two years ago my employer handed out bottles of cognac as christmas presents to the employees. I don't drink cognac, maybe I should sue him for making me feel excluded?

( The bottle was repackaged and given to my grandfather as a christmas present a week later btw.. )

Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 07:23 PM
Give it a couple more years and they'll ban the Xmas lights on Oxford Street and turn Westminster Abbey into a mosque.

Witnessing the general public's apathy, lack of interest and almost non-existent comprehension of what they are letting themselves in for by meekly submitting to the Muslim's every desire, one has to wonder what's left fighting for or saving. The majority are clearly content to lap up the Ziomedia's instructions on how to live and they don't care which set of political crooks (who usually have remarkably similar policies) run their countries.

The white "majority" in much of Europe have turned into a collection of politically correct, limp-wristed, materialistic status obsessed idiots.

Friday, November 25th, 2005, 12:37 AM
It really is aggravating the way people are allowing their birthright to be stolen from them. And they are so smug about it, like they've really accomplished something. :speechles

Friday, November 25th, 2005, 01:37 AM
This is all fast becoming a big cliche. We have to laugh at our enemies. We have to find this funny, and tell as many people as possible.:D

beowulf wodenson
Friday, November 25th, 2005, 04:27 PM
It is indeed funny and very sad for the English. Muslims are still in the minority here though a growing nuisance. A town where I went to college here in Ky. is full of Bosnian muslim "refugees" and they've actually built a mosque, something I never thought I'd see in my homeland. :speechles Bad enough to have synagogues polluting the fair soil of the Bluegrass.
The greatest problem/demographic threat though are mexicans who demand to be catered to in spanish, illegals, etc. here.

Saturday, February 4th, 2006, 05:40 PM
The Bush administration offered support Friday to protesters angry over caricatures of the prophet Muhammad published in Europe, saying of the cartoons, "We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive."

More... (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfga te.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Farticle.cgi%3Ffile%3D%2Fc%2Fa%2F20 06%2F02%2F04%2FMNGOSH2TSD1.DTL)

Saturday, February 4th, 2006, 06:06 PM
I was just commenting to someone today that I have not seen one U.S. press yet that has printed the cartoons (even as example). Now I know why. I can't believe that we are supporting the protestors. So much for free speech. And this is coming from a country that allows artists to place a crucifix in a bottle of urine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ), and the taxpayers pay for it, which IMO is worse than the muslim cartoons. I didn't see anyone taking a pic of Mohammed and placing him in urine.

Still, the United States defended the right of the Danish and French newspapers to publish the cartoons. "We vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view," McCormack added.

Talk about hypocritical. "We" defend the right to publish and the right to protest.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, reading the U.S. government's statement on the controversy, said, "Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images," which are routinely published in the Arab press, "as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief."

Drawing images is bad, but placing crucifixes in urine is okay I guess.

Saturday, February 4th, 2006, 09:39 PM
The USA supports the Muslims, because this is the only way to stop the Euro-currency.

Thursday, February 9th, 2006, 08:26 AM
The Bush administration offered support Friday to protesters angry over caricatures of the prophet Muhammad published in Europe, saying of the cartoons, "We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive."
Personally, I find the beheading of innocent Europeans and Americans offensive - not to mention the barbarisms these same Muslims inflict upon each other.

Incidentally, the term "prophet" applied to Muhammad is equally objectionable for many reasons. First, he's traditionally considered a false prophet by the Christian religion. Second, the Islamic ethos that this false prophet introduced to the world is fundamentally incompatible with the historic Germanic pursuit of light, truth and beauty. Finally, this soi-disant prophet and his followers have proven inimical to all who do not submit to Islam - as the long centuries of Germanics and other Europeans defending their lands and peoples from the Turk attest.

If there is any free speech left, it is not for us. When Muslims build mosques in Europe, such offense is not expressed.