If the question violated his beliefs, he's within his rights to not answer it and fail the test.

He's not forced to be a lawyer, and the Bar exam shouldn't accomodate his beliefs or be sensitive to anyone. It should test the law.

I mean, of course the guy is homophobic, but he has the right to be that way. Doesn't mean he should get anything, except a gay dude drilling his butt XD

How do you know that? Did you talk to him?

For all you know, his arguement is over the simple ethical question of it is right or not to put that in the test.

I guess it is unethical for the people administrating the bar exam to test people about the law. =\/

It is when it violates the seperation of church and state.

How does the question violate the separation of church and state? Is there such an amendment to the Massachussets constitution? Because otherwise we default to disestablishmentarianism, wherein the state may make no law regarding religion.

Something which gay marriage does not violate.

It was against his religious belief to answer the question. Gay marriage is allowed in one state does not mean its universally accepted. (Obviously, this guy should go to another state for the bar exam, given its well known that same sex marriage is allowed in Massachussets.)

A better question may be how is it that its against his religious beliefs - yet the state acknowledges same-sex marriage - even though the very basis of American law is founded on Christianity? Does that mean that the guy is wrong for making this demand - or that Massachussets is somehow breaking the law by curtailing its own foundation ?

That doesn't violate the separation of church and state. Because somebody takes issue with the way the state conducts itself in regards to his religion does not mean the church and state are conjoined. It's precisely the opposite.

If you're taking that stance, then why should any marriage be recognized by the government?

Edit:

Does that mean if a lawyer was to come from Iran he should be able to answer "All the women in the story should be stoned to death for leaving the house without a man's accompaniment." and be correct?

It obviously does - since the state is now telling "you" (not YOU, but "you" as a "whole") that gay sex is moral/legal even though its not only a hot topic of debate but that other states refuse to recognize it as well.

You're asking the wrong guy. I think marriage is bullshit to begin with.

And I think having to wait for a pedestrian to completely cross the street, even the other side I'm not driving on, before going is bullshit, but I'm still able to suck it up and answer the correct response on my driving test because I know I'm being evaluated on my knowledge of the law, not my agreement with it.

Again (since you didn't seem to get this the first time):

Enacting a law that allows certain behaviors is not a violation of church and state. Ever. For example, some religions may think that black people are inferior, and should be slaves (people who base their KKK affiliation on their religion, for example). Would you argue, then that making it illegal to have slaves violates their religion and, thus, should be shot down?

Further, that really has nothing to do with the question at hand. He was simply asked to discuss the legality of a certain situation, period. He was not forced to endorse said situation, he was not forced to take the bar exam.

Further, even if the question some how did violate his freedom of religion, the Massachusetts Bar is not a public entity, but a private one, and freedom of religion does not apply in that case.


It's not even a gray area. You are wrong on every single point you've made on this thread. Just like the man bringing the lawsuit.