So the defense has to offer a good argument that what he did was justified? That is a bias against the defense that is not present in other cases. The fundamental setup is different in that case, just as it is in these situations. "Proof" is too strong of a word, but it borders on that for what the defense has to show.

I still find it laughable that somehow you can discriminate based on the content of religious speech and religious protests, but not on religious beliefs.

12/9/2010 12:53:00 PM

Quote :

"That is NOT the way the law always works. With self-defense situations, the burden of proof is on the victim who defended himself to prove that killing his assailant was justified. The prosecution does not have to prove that it was unjustified. Many areas of law are like this. This is one."

Good fucking god are you retarded? self defense is an affirmative defense. Of course you have you prove your affirmative defense; because you are introducing facts above and beyond what the prosecution is claiming. The prosecution is claiming you killed a guy. Normally they would have to prove it, but because you are claiming you killed the guy in self defense, you are ceding the prosecutions claim and are introducing new evidence. It is always incumbent upon the individual in court claiming something to prove what they are claiming.

Quote :

"If you refuse service, and you are called on it legally, it is 100% on you to show that you had a good, justifiable, legal reason to do it. "

Not at all true. Again, I cannot claim you are a pedophile and then state it is your job you prove you aren't. With everything, it is up to the plaintiff to show the bias exists and was acted upon.

12/9/2010 12:53:32 PM

^^I find it laughable that you keep posting.

but you keep posting.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 12:53 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2010 12:53:45 PM

Dude

Guy is on trial for murder

The defense is that it was self-defense

The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not in self-defense

12/9/2010 12:54:21 PM

Quote :

"I still find it laughable that somehow you can discriminate based on the content of religious speech and religious protests, but not on religious beliefs"

So you don't understand the difference between actions and beliefs?

Quote :

"Dude Guy is on trial for murder The defense is that it was self-defense The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not in self-defense"

actually no. the guy is on trial for murder. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy killed another person.

The defendant, by admitting to the killing, has to prove the affirmative defense of self defense.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2010 12:56:00 PM

if you shoot someone, in any situation, if have the right to not say a goddamn word about it in your defense. the responsibility is on the prosecution to show that the shooting was illegal. you are getting confused because you are talking about someone using self defense as their defense, and the responsibility is on them to defend themselves because they are taking an affirmative defense.

christ dude this isn't even complicated law, its not even high school civics law, this is god damn "i watched an episode or two of law and order and i understand this" simple

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2010 12:56:14 PM

TULIP is just getting wrecked ITT.

12/9/2010 12:57:36 PM

aw leave the guy alone, he just has a soft spot for his intellectual peers.

12/9/2010 12:58:27 PM

Quote :

"So you don't understand the difference between actions and beliefs?"

First, as I mentioned, it is impossible to discriminate exclusively on beliefs. Beliefs are inside your head. Nobody knows what is in there. Other people only know about it when you act (by attending groups of similar people, engaging the public with your beliefs, etc.)

That means that nobody has ever been discriminated against based on their beliefs. By definition, they are unknowable. All we have to use to judge is action.

So are you saying I can refuse service to gayblackmuslims if I just claim that I find their protests and speeches distasteful and disturbing?

This is why I said your standard is going to cut in ways you don't like. You will not make the same action/belief distinction if it is a group you like.

12/9/2010 1:02:12 PM

who is counter-protesting the Westboro idiots?

I'll be there on Saturday

TWW Black Bloc?

12/9/2010 1:02:16 PM

Quote :

"So are you saying I can refuse service to gayblackmuslims if I just claim that I find their protests and speeches distasteful and disturbing? "

If you're refusing service because of their actions, yes. Someone already told you that, though.

12/9/2010 1:04:01 PM

You cannot possibly believe that.

12/9/2010 1:04:33 PM

Is there a reason I shouldn't?

12/9/2010 1:05:35 PM

It's plainly false.

Let's say I refuse service to the head of CAIR because I find the means of his religious protests and activism distasteful.

You honestly believe I would not be laughed out of court?

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 1:08 PM. Reason : a]

12/9/2010 1:06:43 PM

uh, cause you won't like the way its sliced or something

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM. Reason : duh]

12/9/2010 1:07:01 PM

So if a gayblackmuslim punches my mom in the face, I'm constitutionally obligated to fix his tires?

12/9/2010 1:08:09 PM

Quote :

"First, as I mentioned, it is impossible to discriminate exclusively on beliefs. Beliefs are inside your head. Nobody knows what is in there. Other people only know about it when you act (by attending groups of similar people, engaging the public with your beliefs, etc.)"

It's pretty fucking easy to discriminate exclusively on beliefs. See the various anti-jew laws.

Quote :

"That means that nobody has ever been discriminated against based on their beliefs. By definition, they are unknowable. All we have to use to judge is action."

Jews, Mormons,, JWs, Catholics have all been discriminated against because of their beliefs.

Quote :

"So are you saying I can refuse service to gayblackmuslims if I just claim that I find their protests and speeches distasteful and disturbing?"

You would have to find an act by that person

Quote :

"This is why I said your standard is going to cut in ways you don't like. You will not make the same action/belief distinction if it is a group you like."

It doesn't cut any way other than the way it is intended to cut. It's not my fault you are a complete fucking retard.

Quote :

"Let's say I refuse service to the head of CAIR because I find the means of his religious protests and activism distasteful."

It depends on what said activities are.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 1:12 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2010 1:09:54 PM

Quote :

"You would have to find an act by that person"

No, you would have to find an act by that person that wasn't religious.

Quote :

"Jews, Mormons,, JWs, Catholics have all been discriminated against because of their beliefs. "

No, you could be a closet Mormon/JW/Catholic/Jew and have no trouble. Because your beliefs are unknowable. They were discriminated against for acting according to their Mormon/JW/Catholic/Jew beliefs by going to religious meetings, proselytizing, etc.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 1:12 PM. Reason : a]

12/9/2010 1:10:52 PM

Quote :

"No, you would have to find an act by that person that wasn't religious."

You are a bumbling mongloidal poopy pants.

Do you dress yourself in the morning?

Quote :

"No, you could be a closet Mormon/JW/Catholic/Jew and have no trouble. Because your beliefs are unknowable. They were discriminated against for acting according to their Mormon/JW/Catholic/Jew beliefs by going to religious meetings, proselytizing, etc."

goddamnit, you can't be this dumb.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 1:15 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2010 1:13:05 PM

Quote :

"They were discriminated against for acting according to their Mormon/JW/Catholic/Jew beliefs by going to religious meetings, proselytizing, etc. like jerks."

12/9/2010 1:14:14 PM

Ah, "I didn't like his sermon/poster/protest in favor of gay rights" is good enough to refuse service, but "I don't like his religion" is not.

I get it.

12/9/2010 1:14:46 PM

Quote :

"I get it."

pretty sure the comprehensive list of what you 'get' would fill a single yellow sticky note.

12/9/2010 1:16:34 PM

Quote :

"Ah, "I didn't like his sermon/poster/protest in favor of gay rights" is good enough to refuse service, but "I don't like his religion" is not. I get it."

You still don't get it.

12/9/2010 1:17:01 PM

Quote :

"I get it."

no, you don't

12/9/2010 1:18:01 PM

Quote :

"In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only. The cemetery failed to exclude punk rockers from the service. The punk rockers arrived in unconventional dress, wearing makeup and sporting various hair colors. One was wearing a dress decorated with live rats. Others wore leather and chains, some were twirling baton-like weapons, drinking, and using cocaine. The punk rockers made rude comments to family members and were generally disruptive of the service. Ironically, the funeral business had attempted to rely on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming that if they had denied access to the punk rockers, they would have been in violation of the Act. But the court held that the punk rockers' presence had deprived the deceased person's family of the services of the business establishment, which were meant to provide comfort to grieving family members. On that basis, the court stated that the funeral business could have legitimately denied access to the punk rockers."

12/9/2010 1:18:59 PM

Quote :

"I didn't like his sermon/poster/protest in favor of gay rights"

Chop off the gay rights

You don't like their protest at a fucking funeral

You don't like the tasteless disruption of a ceremony meant to honor a loved one

It doesn't matter why they did it, it matters that they did it

That's why you don't fix their tires

Not because of beliefs

Because of actions

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM. Reason : KeB wins the thread]

12/9/2010 1:19:28 PM

I think it's pretty amazing to have so many enlightened, educated, worldly-wise liberals sitting here angrily denying someone's right to public accommodation because of their religious speech.

Let a gay group loudly protest a funeral of a guy like Falwell, and then have their tires slashed, and then be denied service, and you people would be marching in the streets.

12/9/2010 1:20:35 PM

^^^ the "Unruh Civil Rights Act" is a california law



[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2010 1:20:47 PM

So now we're just gonna make up shit

12/9/2010 1:21:53 PM

having the right to do something doesn't protect you from people getting mad about it

12/9/2010 1:22:42 PM

Quote :

"Let a gay group loudly protest a funeral of a guy like Falwell"

It would be tasteless, but at least it would be pertinent

Holding God Hates Fags signs at Elizabeth Edwards' funeral is just being a dick

Pick a better venue and say whatever you want

12/9/2010 1:24:29 PM

Can we get some more analogies up in this thread? I'm just not grasping the concepts here. Thanks in advance.

12/9/2010 1:25:30 PM

Quote :

"having the right to do something doesn't protect you from people getting mad about it"

Who said it did?

I think any owner should be able to discriminate against anyone, for any reason, at any times, as arbitrarily, capriciously and inconsistently as he wishes. I would have denied these idiots service, too.

That's not the point. The point is the hypocrisy and double-standard.

12/9/2010 1:25:30 PM

i think now you're just trying to argue yourself into some kind of position that doesn't look as retarded as when you were entirely, patently wrong about your point. its not going to work though.

12/9/2010 1:27:15 PM

Quote :

"I think it's pretty amazing to have so many enlightened, educated, worldly-wise liberals sitting here angrily denying someone's right to public accommodation because of their religious speech."

It depends on the actions

Quote :

"Let a gay group loudly protest a funeral of a guy like Falwell, and then have their tires slashed, and then be denied service, and you people would be marching in the streets."

It would depend on the actions of the group protesting. Also, you are, again, completely confusing a court of law and the court of public opinion.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2010 1:27:48 PM

A free society shouldn't have discrimination laws. Private citizens should be able to do what they want with their property, as long as they don't inflict harm upon someone else. That's right. You should have the right to deny people service for whatever reason you want. It's called freedom, a concept many of you will claim to support.

12/9/2010 1:30:44 PM

.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 1:33 PM. Reason : not worth it.]

12/9/2010 1:33:12 PM

so they are picketing her funeral because she supported gay marriage?

12/9/2010 1:34:21 PM

for the attention

12/9/2010 1:35:52 PM

more than likely because that's the event going on which will be the easiest to troll.

12/9/2010 1:36:22 PM

tulip is an idiot hahahaha

this thread is great.



and screw the WBC, but I wont be messing with them. they have like half their family of lawyers to sue you if you try and mess with them.

12/9/2010 1:43:14 PM

Quote :

"In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service."

Those of you trolling Tulip are being dumb now. I don't think you can refuse service to someone because of something they did that had nothing to do with interacting with your public business. Otherwise, you could get away with refusing service to any group based on the actions that define that group as that group ("I refused him service because he has, at some point, practiced as a homosexual" is not a good enough reason to deny him service under the civil rights act. Neither is, "he kissed that guy across the street before he came into my restaurant"). the business must have a specific interest in refusing service. The WBC protests don't introduce that when it comes to needing their tires replaced. So, legally, the WBC protesters should have been allowed access to the service based on the civil rights act.

That being said, I totally disagree with the civil rights act, but that's another story entirely.

12/9/2010 1:46:02 PM

Quote :

"I don't think you can refuse service to someone because of something they did that had nothing to do with interacting with your public business"

You most certainly can.

Quote :

"Otherwise, you could get away with refusing service to any group based on the actions that define that group as that group"

No you can't

You are being as purposefully obtuse as tulip

12/9/2010 1:59:39 PM

^^no.

they were in attendance of the towns friends funeral. they prompted the protest in that town...

why do you think clubs wont let people in if they have on baggy clothes or white tees or shirts that say certain things on them? because of PREVIOUS actions by that affiliated group.

the only way that they could sue anyone...would to be to sue the people that slashed their tires. thats the only leg they would have to stand on because they defaulted their right by attending a PRIVATE funeral put on by another business in which they had no business being there anyways.

the only leg is claiming that they can sue the people that slashed their tires.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 2:00 PM. Reason : b]

12/9/2010 1:59:45 PM

Quote :

"why do you think clubs wont let people in if they have on baggy clothes or white tees or shirts that say certain things on them? because of PREVIOUS actions by that affiliated group."

wrong. It's legal for places to have a dress code because the civil rights law doesn't protect dress.

That's why that law specific to California was passed (it's posted above in one of my quotes) the specifically protects strange dress IN CALIFORNIA.


^^Yeah, awesome post, dude. Way to disagree with me with a "yes you can," and offering no proof. THE WBC PROTEST WAS LEGAL, PERMITTED, AND IN LINE WITH THEIR PROTECTED RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, YOU CAN'T DENY THEM SERVICE BASED ON IT BECAUSE THAT IS PROTECTED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 2:04 PM. Reason : ]

12/9/2010 2:03:08 PM

Quote :

"THE WBC PROTEST WAS LEGAL, PERMITTED, AND IN LINE WITH THEIR PROTECTED RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, YOU CAN'T DENY THEM SERVICE BASED ON IT BECAUSE THAT IS PROTECTED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT"

What about the 1000 "counterprotestors" that slashed their tires and required the WBC dickheads to need police escorts (and tire shop service in the first place). Is the bad advertisement, the mob's perception of the tire shop, or the potential damage/attack to the tire shop legit enough?

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 2:10 PM. Reason : ]

12/9/2010 2:08:14 PM

im not using the dress code as a legal example...im saying it was their ACTION by wearing that item in which affiliates them thus rendering them classified as a gang member.

im trying to make it easy for these idiots to understand and yes that was a poor example.

maybe this is better...

A practicing taliban member walking down the street in which no one knows who he is or anything about him.
A practicing taliban member walking down the street shooting bullets randomly.

beliefs vs. actions

no one would deny the first man business because you dont KNOW his beliefs off hand...it is his ACTIONS that make him vunerable to non service.

that better?

12/9/2010 2:08:44 PM

Quote :

"or the potential damage/attack to the tire shop legit enough"

That, maybe is a legit reason.

12/9/2010 2:12:19 PM

Quote :

"^^Yeah, awesome post, dude. Way to disagree with me with a "yes you can," and offering no proof. THE WBC PROTEST WAS LEGAL, PERMITTED, AND IN LINE WITH THEIR PROTECTED RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, YOU CAN'T DENY THEM SERVICE BASED ON IT BECAUSE THAT IS PROTECTED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT"

Westboro Baptist Church would have to prove it was based upon their protected religious class. The business has a legitimate reason to deny providing services to WBC. WBC are known agitators and created a disturbance inside the town. It is reasonable for the business owners to assume that WBC's patronage of their shop would create another distrubance.

Also, we are talking about Tulsa, Oklahoma. Do you honestly believe the fine folks of Tulsa denied them services because their religion is against homosexuality, or do you think it was because they were protesting a funeral for a fallen soldier?

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 2:16 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 2:17 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2010 2:13:35 PM

Difficult, yes. Impossible, not at all

^doesn't matter, doesn't lead to a business interest in refusing service.

Quote :

"A practicing taliban member walking down the street in which no one knows who he is or anything about him. A practicing taliban member walking down the street shooting bullets randomly. "

first guy, can't be denied service. Second guy can be, if you think he's gonna put bullets in your establishment (reasonable)

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 2:18 PM. Reason : ]

12/9/2010 2:16:15 PM