Moron fails the Bar exam because of the gays
 

From the Boston Herald:
Aaand here's the offending question:
Somehow, if this guy thinks he's going to get anything -- let alone $9.75 million -- out of this, I think it's pretty safe to say that he didn't flunk the Bar exam solely because of this question.

Thoughts? Opinions? Should such a "socially sensitive" question like this be allowed on the Bar exam? Does it matter, and why?

Hahaha, what are the rights of Mary and Jane.

This dude doesn't have a case. For shit. That question doesn't imply he endorses anything. I think this dude didn't pass the bar exam and is now trying anything he can to get around it and get paid.

I know nothing of the bar exam, but would refusing to answer one question really cause him to fail? If he was on the verge and then missed this question then he's just an idiot. If he wasn't even close to passing then he's an idiot. If he got all the other answers right (or at least enough to pass) and refused to answer this question, causing him to fail, he's an idiot.

Sounds pretty cut and dry to me.

The article said he was really close to passing. 268.866 and needed a 270 to pass. If he had a half-assed answer on this question he probably would have passed. (Isn't really the issue, though.)

The case won't succeed. If they had asked him a question on the 2nd Amendment and he was against the NRA, would he have similarly not answered the question? Knowing the law isn't the same as endorsing the law.

There is no 1st Amendment violation as his speech was not impeded, nor was his own ability to practice the religion of his choosing.

I wouldn't hire this guy who failed the bar as my lawyer, that's for sure (if he ever passes the bar). If you can't fairly evaluate and opposing position, how can you ever represent your client well?

What's more is that the question is about domestic issues, not (specifically) gay rights. If Jane had been a man, the nature of the question would not have changed whatsoever. Refusing to answer it based solely on its inclusion of lesbians is a crock.

Isn't the answer a little fuzzy? I mean, individual states have their own laws about what rights a married gay couple would have, if they allow marriage in the first place :p

Why should it be fuzzy? The question presupposes that marriage has been granted legally. The answer would be the same if it were Dick and Sheryl rather than Lisa and Mary. As someone who is going to practice law, this should be obvious.

There is still a seperation of church and state, which could be troublesome given that its a legal question that offended his religious sensibilities. He may actually have a case if he can prove that he was religiously stigmatized by the offending article.

The question we should all be asking is if we want this person working in a law office.

The mere presence of homosexuals -- without an air of disapproval -- is what he finds "offensive," which is completely ridiculous. If the question had involved homosexuals insulting Christianity in some way, then that would serve as grounds for offense.

No more ridiculous than you forcing someone else to conform to your own ideals, which is exactly what this guy is complaining about, like it or not.

I agree with him. I mean, it's a good thing that in the past lawyers have never had to put aside their moral preferences for some vague higher ideal of "justice and representation for all." Otherwise, you could have lawyers helping murderers prepare their defence cases and other such things!

Not fuzzy at all. He was sitting the Massachusetts bar exam for a license in that specific state.

It actually is a very valid question. If he can't determine the rights of a person, he has no business practicing law in that state.

The First Amendment does not give you a right to not be offended by the religious acts of others and the question doesn't limiting his ability to practice his religion in any way he sees fit. The question is not much different to a lawyer than asking what 2+2 equals (not as black and white). The mere fact that they have rights is not state-sponsored religious persecution (no matter what he believes) nor is the fact that the bar asks him to state what those rights are.

It is similar to a white supremacist sitting the bar saying that it is against his religion if he is asked on the bar exam about the rights of a black man.

I had a laugh.

Anyway, unfortunate, a lawyer has every right to refuse to represent a case if he feels that he cannot defend the murderer (for instance). In fact he has a moral imperative to; it's not worse for a man to have to shop for another lawyer than it is for the lawyer he got to give a defense substandard of his abilities. That actually can be grounds for retrial and all that.

Anyway this asshole sounds like the broad who eventually sued University of Michigan - and won - because she was put on a wait list to get in. She apparently felt that affirmative action worked against her. Assholes are everywhere, what can I say?

Maybe Mary is a man. There have been weirder names for men.

Well, the question called both parties "she".

The First Amendment doesn't supercede inalienable rights. Just because you or I disagree with this person doesn't mean he's wrong and just because he comes off as a homophobic dick, doesn't make him automatically wrong.

The fact of the matter is - we wouldn't have lawyers at all if its wasn't for the fact that people disagree on things. Thats as common as grass in this day and age - and why should he have to answer a question that is against his personal beliefs? We don't ask the Amish to climb into ambulances for that very same reason.

Its entirely different - because religions don't have a problem with mathmatics, while they do have a problem with homosexuality.

Thats not called into question. He's complaining about the QUESTION being on the TEST, not the fact that they have rights at all. Stop trying to villianize someone over a disagreement if you're not going to read the fucking article.

If someone wants to live according to their religion, that is their right within reason. But if they want to become a lawyer they have to know and demonstrate an understanding of the law. If that's incompatible with their religion, then it's their right to not be a lawyer.

He's questioning the moral values of a law test, not the social nuances of a group of people. He's never said anything about his dislike of gays - simply that the question was inappropriate to the test and his belief system.

Why is it all you people who scream for equal rights and tolerance are amongst the most ignorant and intolerant people of all?

You obviously do not know what a "right" if if you're using it inappropriately in that sentence.

If the guy had just skipped the question and went on with his life, fine, that's his choice. However, because he chose to raise a stink over it because he failed the test, it sounds like a bad case of sour grapes to me.

A lot of religions are against interracial relationships. What if Jane had been John, a black guy? Would the mere presence of a mixed race couple been "inappropriate"? These things happen in real life. If he didn't want to answer the question, fine. But trying to jack $9.75 mil from the system because he flunked the test -- by getting several other answers wrong, I might add -- is stupid.

I'd be more sympathetic to his case if it wasn't for the dollar signs obstructing the whole story.

Its safe to say that considering how close he was to passing the test and refusing to answer the question that raises this conversation - its entirely possible that he didn't get a passing grade for refusing to answer that single question.

Quite possibly. The state has no say in what people's personal beliefs are, and while this man's ideals aren't the same as my own, he has the complete right to complain about what he sees as a moral injustice. Anything less and we'll have the Red Choir of Russia singing as the likes of you march us all off to some utopian ideal.

You don't see the problem, which is the most confounding thing of all. He's not rebelling against gay marriage - simply that they used it in a test. It would be very, very easy for him to avoid taking up legal council for homosexuals once he passed the bar exam. His issue is with the test, not if homosexuals should be married.

Stop trying to infer something you know nothing about. Without seeing the rest of the test and without knowing the system in which it is scored - all you're doing is assuming these things. You're being the stupid one here, because your tepid, uninformed morality has been offended by... a news article.

I'd be more sympathetic towards your point if you had an intelligent one to make.

Answering a legal question does not imply endorsing any values contained within. It means understanding the law. There are laws I disagree with. If I was a lawyer I'd still have to know them anyway.

Answering a legal question does not imply you agree with it or plan on enforcing it to its proper end, either.

He obviously DOES know it because he disagrees with it on the test, doesn't he? You're arguing on ignorance when he obviously doesn't have that if he's disagreeing with it.

I don't see any evidence presented whatsoever that he does possess an understanding of spousal rights under a marital dispute. Indeed, a person could be wholly ignorant of the legal details, and still recognize that the subjects of the test question are homosexual, married, and have children. Shit, I don't have a fucking clue about how the details of the law, but I can still take the point of view that answering that question would offend my religious believes.

He didn't have to answer the question. He didn't. He also failed the test, but there is no inalienable right to become a licensed attorney. There is no inalienable right to not have to take a test to pass the bar to which you have no moral objection to.

What you seem to miss, again: His free speech was not violated, he was allowed to speak in any way possible (and free speech isn't guaranteed in a private setting anyway). His freedom of religion was not violated, he is still allowed to practice his religion in the way he sees fit.

This is like trying to argue with someone who says intelligent design is science. You clearly have no idea what the hell you are talking about and are just trying to string together sentences with all the keywords that make absolutely zero sense.

----------->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...

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.