You're right. This isn't about religion, it's about law. And, in this particular instance, it's about two elements of contract law: Binding arbitration, and something that is known as the choice of law doctrine.
Here's the short moral of the story. If you do not wish Sharia law (or Catholic Canon Law, or Jewish Law) to be applied to contract disputes that you have in contract where you're (willfully) party to binding arbitration under a particular choice of law, THEN DON'T SIGN THE CONTRACT.
The people on this thread that are "calling the governor" or pining to have the judge impeached can't even begin to understand the stupidity they're conveying, apparently. The judge did EXACTLY what he should have under the obligations of existing contract law. In this country, contracts have consequences. You should enter them carefully.
Stop making sense!
Yes but isn’t arbitration suppose to secular in nature. Arbitration while yes is outside of the court system and part of contracts that people agree upon but the arbitration is still based on the laws in the jurisdiction the contract was drafted.
Yes contracts are binding in this country with serious consequences but they also are only binding if legal! Contracts have to be within the laws of the jurisdiction.
We don’t subject Catholic institutions to Canon Law in this country. I do not know of any Catholic institutions or individuals that have litigated an issue under a Catholic arbitration system. Correct me if I am wrong though.
A nice breath of fresh air.
You know, I saw what probably was the fourth thread (of five) and within, perhaps 2 minutes, had determined this was primarily a decision about an arbitration path for the litigants. Titles of threads seem to be enough information for far too many people.