Those crazy townspeople need to stop pitching fits about their “majority christian rights” and stop planning to waste everyone’s money on a hopeless lawsuit, which they will not only lose on the constitutional basis, but which will also cement their reputation as deluded bigots. Stop, for god’s sake!
grumpyoldfartsays
One good thing, the leaders of the mainstream churches are already condemning the threats of violence and ordering the people of Cranston to calm down and obey the law.
Oh wait …
elronxenusays
grumpyoldfart, you had me going for a while there.
A very short while.
elronxenusays
“Should a small minority be able to decide what should stand and what should not stand?”
The speaker is referring to Jessica as a small minority, but it wasn’t Jessica’s decision. The judge made the decision, and the judge represents the law and the constitution. So this speech misses the point quite badly. What the speaker is actually arguing is that minorities should not have rights, if the majority disagrees. That’s quite an appalling attitude to hold, let alone present in public.
What is wrong with these people? I think they must understand that their motive is religious. Do they not understand that the US constitution requires the government to be secular? Or that public high schools are a government institution and so are bound by the same law?
I suppose it would be an interesting but futile effort to try to reason with them.
had3says
As long as that small minority consists of the wealthiest Americans, then, yes; they do support it.
Those crazy townspeople need to stop pitching fits about their “majority christian rights” and stop planning to waste everyone’s money on a hopeless lawsuit, which they will not only lose on the constitutional basis, but which will also cement their reputation as deluded bigots. Stop, for god’s sake!
One good thing, the leaders of the mainstream churches are already condemning the threats of violence and ordering the people of Cranston to calm down and obey the law.
Oh wait …
grumpyoldfart, you had me going for a while there.
A very short while.
“Should a small minority be able to decide what should stand and what should not stand?”
The speaker is referring to Jessica as a small minority, but it wasn’t Jessica’s decision. The judge made the decision, and the judge represents the law and the constitution. So this speech misses the point quite badly. What the speaker is actually arguing is that minorities should not have rights, if the majority disagrees. That’s quite an appalling attitude to hold, let alone present in public.
What is wrong with these people? I think they must understand that their motive is religious. Do they not understand that the US constitution requires the government to be secular? Or that public high schools are a government institution and so are bound by the same law?
I suppose it would be an interesting but futile effort to try to reason with them.
As long as that small minority consists of the wealthiest Americans, then, yes; they do support it.