- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 29,957
- Reaction score
- 14,683
- Location
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than they all of us should be killed by God's wroth against us for the folly of tolerating wickedness in our midst, the people of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to head or by any other convenient method.
No person shall distribute, perform or transmit sodomistic propaganda directly or indirectly by any means to any person under the age of majority. Sodomistic propaganda is defined as anything aimed at creating an interest in or an acceptance of human sexual relations other than between a man and a woman. Every offender shall be fined $1 million per occurence, and/or imprisoned up to 10 years, and/or expelled from the boundaries of the state of California for up to life.
No. It's called The First Amendment. It doesn't matter how offensive the speech is, he has a right to use it.
But does someone with such offensive opinions still comply with the "good moral character" provision that the bar stipulates?
I agree that he is free to have such horrendous opinions but should the bar have this kind of guy represent them?
But does someone with such offensive opinions still comply with the "good moral character" provision that the bar stipulates?
I agree that he is free to have such horrendous opinions but should the bar have this kind of guy represent them?
It seems that in California you need to be of "good moral character", but the LGBT community wonders whether someone qualifies for this if he has proposed a statewide ballet that would allow gays and lesbians to be "put to death by bullets to the head".
Or as this idiot (and I am using it here instead of other words that IMHO suit this moron even better but that would be bannedfrom use on this or most other message boards/forums) put it:
But the moron goes on, he does not think putting gays and lesbians to death for even something as sexually promiscuous as a kiss, he also wants to target the people "who propagandize that abomination":
And then he goes on that the federal government should not be allowed to ban such a law, he goes on that if the government does not enforce this law and remains inactive for a year, that the general public is allowed to kill these sodomites themselves without any fear of consequences. You know, a good old gay and lesbian killing fest without any fear of being arrested or imprisoned.
You can read his entire moronic law here: stupidest lawyer ever proposes legalizing hate crimes.
You can read more about this disgraceful excuse for a human being and a person who clearly does not belief in the United States or anything it stands for (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and a whole host of US laws/civil rights) here:
Matthew Gregory McLaughlin, California Lawyer, Proposes Ballot Measure Allowing Execution of Gays - NBC News
A lawyer in California is pushing a ballot measure to legalize killing gay people - Vox
So please discuss, should someone like that be allowed to practice law in California or has he well and truly gone beyond being of "good moral character"?
So please discuss, should someone like that be allowed to practice law in California or has he well and truly gone beyond being of "good moral character"?
No. It's called The First Amendment. It doesn't matter how offensive the speech is, he has a right to use it.
No. It's called The First Amendment. It doesn't matter how offensive the speech is, he has a right to use it.
No. It's called The First Amendment. It doesn't matter how offensive the speech is, he has a right to use it.
and the state has a right to ban him from the bar because of it too...
Absolutely. Nobody said otherwise. The poll asked our opinions, didn't it?
You are absolutely right, I just asked the opinions of people.
And if I only wanted opinions who agree with mine I would have made a very different poll with no real options other than the ones that supported mine.
The only ones who have a qualified opinion are the people who run the bar in California and while my opinion is strike the gay-murder advocate, the bar is free to make up their own minds in this case because they will be deciding this Christian Sharia advocate's future as a lawyer.
Lol, whut?We have the right to speak, but we dont have the right to offend someone, we can face a lot problems if we do that.
Uh, yes, the only people whose opinions really matter are the only people who can actually disbar him, yes. Was that every in doubt?
So when Catholics lobby to have pro-abortion lawyers disbarred, you'll support them. When people ask for a defense attorney who disgustingly denigrates a rape victim in the name of defending his heinous client to be disbarred, you'll support them (by the way, that happens all the time). You'll support the Bar changing its rules so that anyone who ever was convicted of a crime, ever was addicted to drugs or alcohol, ever did anything even remotely considered to be of questionable moral character by anyone, etc. is disbarred.
There won't be any attorneys left in California.
I was not aware that being supportive of a legal medical procedure was grounds to be accused of not being "of good moral character". Now if there was a pro-choice lawyer drafting a bill that would round up all pro-lifers who protest/hinder the legal procedure of abortion and shoot them, then yes, he should be struck from the bar too.
Lol, whut?
You mean the government can put you in jail or seize your property just for offending someone?
No. It's called The First Amendment. It doesn't matter how offensive the speech is, he has a right to use it.
The 1st Amendment protects your right to say what you want to say. It doesn't protect you from the consequences that usually follow opening your mouth before you turn your brain on. :roll:
No. It's called The First Amendment. It doesn't matter how offensive the speech is, he has a right to use it.
Catholics oppose abortion on moral (to them) grounds. And what this lawyer did was perfectly legal too.
So in other words, you want him disbarred because he offends you. In this country we still don't toss people in gulags or remove their license to make a living for offending someone else. Yet.
We have the right to speak, but we dont have the right to offend someone, we can face a lot problems if we do that.
Really? Calling for Sharia law and the murder of gays for the act of being gay with intent to be sexually aroused? That is not legal, that is a violation of anything decent. I doubt the catholic church would even condone such a horrendous crime.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?