Personally Opposed to Homosexuality?... Judge OK's Expulsion from College...

[Ravi]

That doesn't matter. That is the program she was enrolled in and that is the program she was legitimately flunked out of.

 

[Yurt]

That doesn't matter. That is the program she was enrolled in and that is the program she was legitimately flunked out of.

that remains to be seen....

you hate the first amendment

and how cute, it mattered until i called you on your bs....lol

 

[Ravi]

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the first amendment.

You continue to show yourself as a moron. Good work.

 

[Yurt]

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the first amendment.

You continue to show yourself as a moron. Good work.

and you're a moron....even the court talked about the first amendment

did you graduate 3rd grade?

 

[Ravi]

After adding nothing to the discussion, Yurt reverts to his normal trollish behavior.

*yawn*

 

[mal]

School guidance counselors are not free to pick and choose who they will counsel.

It's quite simple.

She should consider a different career path.

Deviant Sexual Activities should be an Issue in Schools... Specifically when we are talking about Minors.



peace...

Still banned from schools, eh mal?

Still fucking your dog, eh ravi?...



peace...

 

[Yurt]

After adding nothing to the discussion, Yurt reverts to his normal trollish behavior.

*yawn*

?

you're the one who starts with the name calling....and you accusing me of troll behavior?

to claim the case has nothing to do with the first amendment is downright stupid...have you actually read the opinion, if you had you would not have made such a stupid comment....

http://adfwebadmin.com/resources/Files/Julea Ward v. Roy Wilbanks, et al._District Court Opinion.pdf

read the case ravi....don't worry, i don't except you to admit you're wrong, we all know that never happens

 

[bodecea]

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the first amendment.

You continue to show yourself as a moron. Good work.

and you're a moron....even the court talked about the first amendment

did you graduate 3rd grade?

Show us that anyone can get any degree/license they want by crying 1st Amendment.

 

[Yurt]

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the first amendment.

You continue to show yourself as a moron. Good work.

and you're a moron....even the court talked about the first amendment

did you graduate 3rd grade?

Show us that anyone can get any degree/license they want by crying 1st Amendment.

english please

 

[topspin]

yurt trying going with you don't think something is moral in your next law school exam.

 

[Ravi]

Having demonstrated that its Policy is reasonably related to legitimate
pedagogical concerns, the University did not violate plaintiff’s First Amendment free
speech rights.

The judge agreed with me.

 

[Yurt]

Having demonstrated that its Policy is reasonably related to legitimate
pedagogical concerns, the University did not violate plaintiff’s First Amendment free
speech rights.

The judge agreed with me.

good lord, you are an idiot...you said:

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the first amendment.

the judge did not agree with you, in fact the judge spent numerous pages explaining how the first amendment relates to the case, however, in his opinion it doesn't violate the 1st amendment...

so, saying the case had nothing to do with the first amendment is flat out false...that is like saying a murder trial, wherein the defendant is found innocent, had nothing to do with murder....

you're on a troll today ravi

 

[Yurt]

yurt trying going with you don't think something is moral in your next law school exam.

why are you obsessed with my personal life? why don't you and maineman get a room and toss each off....

creep

 

[Ravi]

Having demonstrated that its Policy is reasonably related to legitimate
pedagogical concerns, the University did not violate plaintiff’s First Amendment free
speech rights.

The judge agreed with me.

good lord, you are an idiot...you said:

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the first amendment.

the judge did not agree with you, in fact the judge spent numerous pages explaining how the first amendment relates to the case, however, in his opinion it doesn't violate the 1st amendment...

so, saying the case had nothing to do with the first amendment is flat out false...that is like saying a murder trial, wherein the defendant is found innocent, had nothing to do with murder....

you're on a troll today ravi

Here you are with your typical fucking bullshit once again. The complaint had NOTHING to do with the first amendment. The woman was WRONG.

Suck on it.

 

[ConHog]

The judge agreed with me.

good lord, you are an idiot...you said:

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the first amendment.

the judge did not agree with you, in fact the judge spent numerous pages explaining how the first amendment relates to the case, however, in his opinion it doesn't violate the 1st amendment...

so, saying the case had nothing to do with the first amendment is flat out false...that is like saying a murder trial, wherein the defendant is found innocent, had nothing to do with murder....

you're on a troll today ravi

Here you are with your typical fucking bullshit once again. The complaint had NOTHING to do with the first amendment. The woman was WRONG.

Suck on it.

You maam are an idiot. In this case Yurt is correct. The judge clearly ruled that the case was entirely about the first Amendment, he simply ruled that it wasn't a violation of the woman's first Amendment rights in his opinion. What's next, do you argue that Sitz wasn't about the 4th Amendment because the SCOTUS ruled that it wasn't a violation? Moron.

 

[Ravi]

good lord, you are an idiot...you said:

the judge did not agree with you, in fact the judge spent numerous pages explaining how the first amendment relates to the case, however, in his opinion it doesn't violate the 1st amendment...

so, saying the case had nothing to do with the first amendment is flat out false...that is like saying a murder trial, wherein the defendant is found innocent, had nothing to do with murder....

you're on a troll today ravi

Here you are with your typical fucking bullshit once again. The complaint had NOTHING to do with the first amendment. The woman was WRONG.

Suck on it.

You maam are an idiot. In this case Yurt is correct. The judge clearly ruled that the case was entirely about the first Amendment, he simply ruled that it wasn't a violation of the woman's first Amendment rights in his opinion. What's next, do you argue that Sitz wasn't about the 4th Amendment because the SCOTUS ruled that it wasn't a violation? Moron.

A retard defending an idiot.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Pretty queer post. I'm speechless...

 

[Yurt]

The judge agreed with me.

good lord, you are an idiot...you said:

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the first amendment.

the judge did not agree with you, in fact the judge spent numerous pages explaining how the first amendment relates to the case, however, in his opinion it doesn't violate the 1st amendment...

so, saying the case had nothing to do with the first amendment is flat out false...that is like saying a murder trial, wherein the defendant is found innocent, had nothing to do with murder....

you're on a troll today ravi

Here you are with your typical fucking bullshit once again. The complaint had NOTHING to do with the first amendment. The woman was WRONG.

Suck on it.

if the case had nothing to do with the first amemdment, why did the judge spend so many pages discussing the first amendment? and if the case had nothing to do with the first amendment, why was it necessary for the judge to rule the school did not violate the first amendment?

 

[ConHog]

Here you are with your typical fucking bullshit once again. The complaint had NOTHING to do with the first amendment. The woman was WRONG.

Suck on it.

You maam are an idiot. In this case Yurt is correct. The judge clearly ruled that the case was entirely about the first Amendment, he simply ruled that it wasn't a violation of the woman's first Amendment rights in his opinion. What's next, do you argue that Sitz wasn't about the 4th Amendment because the SCOTUS ruled that it wasn't a violation? Moron.

A retard defending an idiot.

Ravi I have proven to be your intellectual superior in so many instances that it has become trite and meaningless at this point.

 

[Samson]

You maam are an idiot. In this case Yurt is correct. The judge clearly ruled that the case was entirely about the first Amendment, he simply ruled that it wasn't a violation of the woman's first Amendment rights in his opinion. What's next, do you argue that Sitz wasn't about the 4th Amendment because the SCOTUS ruled that it wasn't a violation? Moron.

A retard defending an idiot.

Ravi I have proven to be your intellectual superior in so many instances that it has become trite and meaningless at this point.

Not that being Ravi's "intellectual superior" is really much of an accomplishment.

Outwiting a chicken would be more difficult.

I thought spelling out why asking about sexual preference in counselling is necessary would make her head explode.