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.