Moron fails the Bar exam because of the gays

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"?

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. 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.

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

The suit also challenges the constitutionality of the 2003 SJC ruling that made Massachusetts the nation’s first state to legalize same-sex marriage.

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.

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.

Lehah what does one's stance on any moral subject have to do with knowing the law well enough to be certified. The question pre-supposes that the couple exists, which can happen in Mass, and asks a very basic question. The question has nothing to do with whether the lifestyle is morally correct, therefore his stance is retarded and he shouldn't be practicing law if he refuses to acknowledge the existence of gay couples. He doesn't have to like it, no one is forcing that issue. What he has to do is realize that they exist and they're just a part of the law as anyone else. And he should know the law.

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.

Originally Posted by LeHah

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.

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?

Quote:

Stop trying to villianize someone over a disagreement if you're not going to read the fucking article.

Originally Posted by CrunchyNachos

Except this guy may turn out to be the Donald Trump of lawyering. He just doesn't want to have anything to do with gays, meaning it's not a matter of aptitude, but personal opinion. I think he's in the wrong. Gay rights are in the law books in his state, so he needs to know them, or at least give the impression to whoever is testing him, that he knows them. After that, he can go back to handing custody over to moms, or whatever it is he wants to do.

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.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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.

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?”