----------->HE'S TAKING A BAR EXAM<-----------

However, there is an inalienable right to the "pursuit of hapiness". That is, if you walked into a muslim deli and demanded a Ham And Cheese sandwich, they can throw you the fuck out based on their religious standing. (Meat and dairy are not allowed to touch). It was against his moral standards - of which you seem to be bigoted toward - and he said as much.

Lord help those who helped the likes of Rosa Parks for doing the same thing all those years ago...

That... makes no sense since he DOES have a moral objection and that IS covered in the unalienable rights. He has the right to his LIFE and the PURSUIT OF HIS OWN HAPPINESS - both of which he is pursuing through this employment.

Did I *ever* mention free speech? No? Perhaps thats because violation of free speech has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

However, he was placed in a "do or die" situation - does he stand up for his own moral standards and fail the test - or does he swallow his own thoughts and answer it, despite the fact he's being dishonest?

His choice was most certainly violated as he was not given any. And its obviously a "hot topic of debate" since most of the US still does not recognize same sex marriage. Just because YOU agree with it and YOU think its right does not denote that it is either INTELLIGENT or CORRECT.

Going back to your bullshit about free speech - if you're so adament about such an ideal and actually had a grasp about what it entails, you wouldn't have a problem that someone with an opposing viewpoint to your own has a conflict of interests with a question on the bar exam because that IS what the Freedom Of Speech is about.

Stop with the fucking Brave New World goose-stepping.

So you support the idea that the state has the right to tell us what is "morally correct" or what is or is not "free speech"?

The fact that he's taking a BAR EXAM and NEARLY PASSED IT shows he's more familiar with the nuances of law than you or I or anyone on this board is.

That said - his rights as an individual to be an individual are protected and if he feels that this situation is a violation of his personal beliefs - which I can honestly understand if he had to face off with the same malcontent beligerance and well-meaning stupidity I've found in this thread - he's still in the right.

Freedom of speech covers everyone in the country, even those you disagree with on the most basic level. It doesn't matter if you think he's an idiot (he's obviously can't be, if hes trying to be a lawyer), it doesn't matter if you think he's "wrong" (which unto its self shows how little you understand about freedom of speech), the long and short of it is that he is in the complete right to do what he did and is correct in what he said.

So some religious greivances are more important than others, is that it?

Say what now?

Also, common sense sorta says that bar exams don't require that you get all of the questions right, especially since the requirement for passing is odd in such a situation (270 points?). I seriously, seriously doubt that missing this ONE question because he got his panties in a twist over some names caused him to fail the test.

Now, that said, I do believe that the question is slightly inappropriate. There was a similar situation at BCC, which involved a math question that had Condoleeza Rice throwing a watermelon off a building (lol). As much as I dislike this, he does have a point when he says that the question is inappropriate, but to be honest, that is the extent of validity his case has. He didn't freakin' fail JUST because of this one question, and he sure as hell doesn't deserve nearly 10 million dollars because of it.

Okay, LeHuh. If you were the judge and jury in this case, what would your findings and judgement be? I'm curious.

I feel the guy is, at best, entitled to a free retest. How he even brings money into the situation is beyond me, however.

He was not disallowed of having a moral objection. Not that it matters: being forced to have moral objections is not a violation of any unalienable rights. Read a Supreme Court case or two if you disagree.

Again, since you don't seem to understand this, he does not have a right to an attorney's license, much like you don't have a right to a driver's license. It is a privilege with requirements to obtain it. He did stand up for his moral standards, however, his doing that carries weight on whether or not he gets to be an attorney.

Nor did I say it was or that it should be. You're the one who is bringing opinion on homosexuals into this debate: the question had nothing to do with whether it is intelligent or correct. In fact, in both mine and Divest's first posts, we indicated that simply stating the rights of a homosexual is not an endorsement of that lifestyle.

And, again, I don't care what his viewpoint is. His viewpoint is not in question, the validity of the lawsuit is.

In terms of the question, the viewpoint that is valid is that of the state and the fact that he can't answer that means he has no business being a licensed attorney.

It's my impression that activist groups wait for, or try to organize situations like this for the express purpose of suing. What this guy's doing isn't really any different. He disagrees with a piece of legislation. He's using this situation to involve the judiciary in an attempt to fight it. The money may just be a way to give it a higher profile.

Gay marriage is sort of allowed in Massachusetts. Or at least it was? I don't keep up with your state, but when marriages have been recognized by the state, a question concerning the legal rights of a separated same-sex couple are very appropriate for the Massachusetts bar exam.

Does this mean that the state should start accommodating religion in its Bar? It's an interesting question. As a state entity, it should be open to all Massachusetts taxpayers. However, I still don't believe that he should win this case, since the question does not violate his practice of religion. He consented to the end result of the test, by electing not to answer the question.

Of course, this opens a Pandora's box of legalese. If he claims that the question violates his religion, he first has to demonstrate that he adheres to a state-recognized religion and must then establish how the question violates the practice thereof. Unless his "religion" states that one must answer no question concerning gay marriage as a form of dogma, he doesn't have much of a case.

Should we modify the legal responsibilities of EMTs because an Amish person couldn't be one without violating his religious beliefs?

Should a fundamentalist Muslim that believes all women should wear veils over their faces be allowed to bring up a similar lawsuit because the test asked about a man recognizing a woman's face?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say by "this guy may be the Donald Trump of lawyering", but the part you quoted I totally misspoke in. I meant to say that it is NOT worse for the guy to find a new lawyer than it is for him to get a shitty representation. If that's what you're commenting on in your quoting of me, my bad!

This man is arguing over is semantics. The point is to recognize the law behind the question and answer it. If he's offended by the question, just petition the Bar Association to change the wording.

“Yesterday, Spouse A got drunk and hit Spouse B with a baseball bat, breaking Spouse B's leg, when Spouse A learned that Spouse B was having an affair with Friend C,” the bar exam question stated. “As a result, Spouse B decided to end the marriage with Spouse A in order to live in the house with Friend A, Friend B, and Friend C. What are the rights of Spouse A and Spouse B?”

Look--it's the same question.

It actually might not necessarily be the same question, since although Massachusetts might have a gay marriage law on the books, they don't necessarily have gay rights written everywhere in the state constitution the same as a married couple. There might be special exceptions due to the fact that it was same-sex.

Rights are semantically non-discriminatory. The rights for a straight married couple apply equally to a same-sex couple. The difference comes in where the court can't have a bias for a different gender.

That doesn't sound like the case though, Brady. I'm not sure why they would go out of their way to put lesbians into their question if it was a simple question about marital rights.

Okay, fine. Then use names that can be used by both sexes. Then the man can't argue the point.

“Yesterday, Pat got drunk and hit Pat with a baseball bat, breaking Pat's leg, when Pat learned that Pat was having an affair with Pat,” the bar exam question stated. “As a result, Pat decided to end the marriage with Pat in order to live in the house with Pat, Pat, and Pat. What are the rights of Pat and Pat?”

But, if there is a difference between the rights of a same-sex couple and that of a straight couple, you can't make the question ambiguous as to the gender of the participants.

If they are intending to ask a question about the rights of a same-sex couple (and if there is indeed a difference) then it defeats the purpose of the question to change it in that way, because the answer to both questions would not be the same. Also, if there is indeed a difference, the ambiguity in the question could lead to even more problems when trying to determine a correct answer.

Really? Well, I guess that's a good thing, but it makes lawyers seem less "hard core" about the innate value of the law. I am disillusioned. About lawyers. :(

Well, if he feels the person he is representing is lying to him or if they really broke the law, then wouldn't the right thing be to not represent them?

I'd say that if he feels that he'd be biased or if he feels he's not qualified to properly defend the person he's right to not represent them, but other than that guilty people are entitled to a full legal defense too, you know. Sort of like John Adams defending the Boston Massacre soldiers.

I think comparing the defense of the soldiers of the Boston Massacre to the likes of Charles Manson or Lucky Luciano is a little bit of a stretch.

Agreed. People are so touchy about the subject that it makes me sick. I could understand if his sensibilities were offended by another man crudely soliciting him for sexual favors, but this is about as tame and removed as one could possibly find. It's just sad to see how low some people will go, and just how bitterness can taint something so simple. :(

Why? They both were charged with criminal offenses. They both were despised by the general public. Why should one be entitled to defense and one not?

EDIT: Dead thread, ignore

I think it has something to do with the British soldiers being assaulted by a mob.

Mrs. Polanski was givin' Charlie the Stink Eye, man...