![]() |
||
|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools |
Moron fails the Bar exam because of the gays
From the Boston Herald:
Thoughts? Opinions? Should such a "socially sensitive" question like this be allowed on the Bar exam? Does it matter, and why? Jam it back in, in the dark.
Prepare the PLANET SMASHAA
|
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. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
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.
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
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.
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Prepare the PLANET SMASHAA
|
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
![]() How ya doing, buddy? |
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.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
---
![]() |
The question we should all be asking is if we want this person working in a law office. FELIPE NO ![]() |
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.
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Prepare the PLANET SMASHAA
|
Jam it back in, in the dark. ![]() |
Ghost |
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!
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
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.
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. How ya doing, buddy? |
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? I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Last edited by Sarag; Jul 9, 2007 at 09:47 AM.
Reason: olo contradiction
|
Maybe Mary is a man. There have been weirder names for men.
I was speaking idiomatically. |
Well, the question called both parties "she".
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
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.
FELIPE NO ![]() |
How ya doing, buddy? |
Why is it all you people who scream for equal rights and tolerance are amongst the most ignorant and intolerant people of all?
Jam it back in, in the dark. ![]() |
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. There's nowhere I can't reach.
Prepare the PLANET SMASHAA
|
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. ![]() |
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.
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
I was speaking idiomatically. ![]() |
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
---
![]() |
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.
FELIPE NO |
----------->HE'S TAKING A BAR EXAM<-----------
Lord help those who helped the likes of Rosa Parks for doing the same thing all those years ago...
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.
How ya doing, buddy? ![]()
Last edited by Misogynyst Gynecologist; Jul 8, 2007 at 03:26 PM.
|
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.
Jam it back in, in the dark. ![]() |