Moron fails the Bar exam because of the gays

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.

Quote:

"Lawyers have to answer questions about legal principles they disagree with all the time, and that doesn’t mean we’re endorsing them,” said Dacey, a director of Goulston & Storrs’ litigation group. “You might be somebody who is morally opposed to divorce, but have to interpret the divorce laws of the commonwealth to answer a question about who property is passed to."

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Zergrinch

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

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.

Originally Posted by LeHah

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 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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by LeHah

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.

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.

Originally Posted by LeHah

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?

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by LeHah

That... makes no sense since he DOES have a moral objection and that IS covered in the unalienable rights.

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.

Originally Posted by LeHah

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?

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.

Originally Posted by LeHah

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.

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.

Originally Posted by LeHah

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.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by LeHah

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.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?