This site has the most complete quotations from the judge that I have found. Notable are two oppposing considerations…
First, the judge says “that she agreed with a second argument [CAIR]Mr. Awad had made — that the definition of Shariah shifts depending on the country in which a Muslim lives and one’s individual beliefs..”
Yet later, she comments,
“…“While defendants contend that the amendment is merely a choice of law provision that bans state courts from applying the law of other nations or cultures, regardless of what faith they may be based on, if any, the actual language of the amendment reasonably, and perhaps more reasonably, may be viewed as specifically singling out Shariah law, conveying a message of disapproval of plaintiff’s faith,” the judge wrote..
So, the question she brings up, yet ignores, is:
Is shariah a nebulous, shifting concept from individual to individual? Or are muslims somehow united in shariah law, and it does not change from individual to individual?
You can’t have it both ways, ma’am. Unless you are just swallowing whole-hog the persuasive, shifting (!) lying arguments of the opposing counsel……