Moron fails the Bar exam because of the gays

Originally Posted by ElectricSheep

The question presupposes that marriage has been granted legally.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Luminaire

The mere presence of homosexuals -- without an air of disapproval -- is what he finds "offensive," which is completely ridiculous.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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 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.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

The question is not much different to a lawyer than asking what 2+2 equals (not as black and white).

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

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Arainach

But if they want to become a lawyer they have to know and demonstrate an understanding of the law.

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?

Originally Posted by Arainach

If that's incompatible with their religion, then it's their right to not be a lawyer.

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

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

Originally Posted by Luminaire

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Luminaire

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"?

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.

Originally Posted by Luminaire

These things happen in real life.

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.

Originally Posted by Luminaire

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Luminaire

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

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Arainach

Answering a legal question does not imply endorsing any values contained within.

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

Originally Posted by Arainach

If I was a lawyer I'd still have to know them anyway.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by ElectricSheep

I don't see any evidence presented whatsoever that he does possess an understanding of spousal rights under a marital dispute.

----------->HE'S TAKING A BAR EXAM<-----------

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

He also failed the test, but there is no inalienable right to become a licensed attorney.

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...

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

There is no inalienable right to not have to take a test to pass the bar to which you have no moral objection to.

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.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

What you seem to miss, again: His free speech was not violated, he was allowed to speak in any way possible

Did I *ever* mention free speech? No? Perhaps thats because violation of free speech has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

His freedom of religion was not violated, he is still allowed to practice his religion in the way he sees fit.

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.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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.

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"?

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

I don't really understand how any rights of his should excuse the fact that he either refused to answer a legitimate question, or doesn't know enough of the law.

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.

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

Prejudices aside if he doesn't know enough about a simple situation (regardless of who the fuck is marrying who), then that's his own damn fault.

So some religious greivances are more important than others, is that it?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by SinspawnAmmes

I mean, of course the guy is homophobic

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

How does the question violate the separation of church and state?

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.)

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Because otherwise we default to disestablishmentarianism, wherein the state may make no law regarding religion.

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 ?

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

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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 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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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

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

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