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

[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.

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?

To show that there was no first amendment violation...therefore, the woman was wrong to think she had a first amendment violation.

Do you have Aspergers Yurt? I don't mean that as an insult...I'm just curious. It would certainly explain a lot.

 

[ConHog]

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 the why asking about sexual preference in counselling is necessary would make her head explode.

LOL - You are correct sir, I am smarter than Ravi is not something one hangs on their Me wall. I mean it is one of the least impressive feats a person can accomplish. I just find it amusing that she thinks the is some shining beacon of intelligence.

If you think that was difficult, you should have been in the sanctuary city thread where I destroyed 38 of her flat out lies in 5 pages with absolute proof from the COTUS or various laws and she just kept sputtering the same " I am right goddammit" lines without once acknowledging that oh ok right there in the COTUS it says the exact opposite as what I'm saying.

Ravi truly deserves the lifetime troll award.

 

[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.

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?

To show that there was no first amendment violation...therefore, the woman was wrong to think she had a first amendment violation.

Do you have Aspergers Yurt? I don't mean that as an insult...I'm just curious. It would certainly explain a lot.

Wow, this is almost as stupid as TM's claim last week that a federal judge would pander for votes. Ravi, even if plaintiff loses the case, the case is STILL about whatever the plaintiff sued over, that being the first Amendment in this case.

You really are a simpleton, don't you ever get embarrassed about it?

 

[Yurt]

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?

To show that there was no first amendment violation...therefore, the woman was wrong to think she had a first amendment violation.

Do you have Aspergers Yurt? I don't mean that as an insult...I'm just curious. It would certainly explain a lot.

do you even know what aspergers is? care to show some examples where i have exhibited such behavior? in fact, you're the one exhibiting like behavior....perhaps you shoiuld think about apologizing before continuing this line of reasoning

thank you again for showing the board your stupidity. deciding whether someone did or did not violate the first amendment, does not mean the case "didn't have anything to do with the first amendment".....rather, quite the opposite, the case was about the first amendment, however, a court ruled there was no violation of the first amendment....

a court would not address issues or law that have nothing to do with a case...your stupidity is seriously disturbing

 

[Samson]

" I am right goddammit" lines without once acknowledging that oh ok right there in the COTUS it says the exact opposite as what I'm saying.

Ravi truly deserves the lifetime troll award.

Yes she reaches the apex of her intellectual capacity when she begins to cluck, "you're stupid!" and runs in a circle flapping her wings.

 

[ConHog]

" I am right goddammit" lines without once acknowledging that oh ok right there in the COTUS it says the exact opposite as what I'm saying.

Ravi truly deserves the lifetime troll award.

Yes she reaches the apex of her intellectual capacity when she begins to cluck, "you're stupid!" and runs in a circle flapping her wings.

Don't also forget the ubiquitous "you're a racist" card. I'm actually surprised she hasn't already thrown that out there against Yurt in this thread, since he is so obviously spanking her ass.

 

[RightNorLeft]

How many of you believe homosexuality is normal on the same level as heterosexuality..

 

[Ravi]

Ah...I see your problem now. IT has nothing to do with the first amendment...in other words the school's actions had nothing to do with the first amendment.

Reason I asked you about Aspergers is because you are very literal minded and apt to misconstrue things said to you. Lots of people have it Yurt, it's really not that big of a deal.

I honestly thought most of the things that you post were an attempt to deflect from the discussion but now I see you are merely misconstruing the meaning of what is being said.

I'll make an effort to keep that in mind in the future.

 

[Yurt]

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the first amendment.

The complaint had NOTHING to do with the first amendment. The woman was WRONG.

Suck on it.

yeah...i really misinterpreted your words....gee...how could i ever have thought you literally meant the case had nothing to "whatsoever" with the first amendment when you repeatedly said it...and you said the complaint....you lied ravi

instead of rationally discussing the issue and admitting you're wrong, you fuck off and ask if i have a serious mental disorder that is extremely harmful to those who have it.

you're seriously disturbed and i have no idea why you feel compelled to lie so much...

 

[ConHog]

Ah...I see your problem now. IT has nothing to do with the first amendment...in other words the school's actions had nothing to do with the first amendment.

Reason I asked you about Aspergers is because you are very literal minded and apt to misconstrue things said to you. Lots of people have it Yurt, it's really not that big of a deal.

I honestly thought most of the things that you post were an attempt to deflect from the discussion but now I see you are merely misconstruing the meaning of what is being said.

I'll make an effort to keep that in mind in the future.

Another Ravi fail

Asperger's Disorder has nothing to do with what you just said.


DSM-IV DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR ASPERGER'S DISORDER

A.Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

(1) marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction
(2) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level

(3) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
(4) lack of social or emotional reciprocity

B.Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:

(1) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(2) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(3) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(4) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

C.The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

D.There is no clinically significant general delay in language (e.g., single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years).

E.There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self-help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in childhood.

F.Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia.

What are the diagnostic criteria of Asperger's Disorder?

 

[Samson]

" I am right goddammit" lines without once acknowledging that oh ok right there in the COTUS it says the exact opposite as what I'm saying.

Ravi truly deserves the lifetime troll award.

Yes she reaches the apex of her intellectual capacity when she begins to cluck, "you're stupid!" and runs in a circle flapping her wings.

Don't also forget the ubiquitous "you're a racist" card. I'm actually surprised she hasn't already thrown that out there against Yurt in this thread, since he is so obviously spanking her ass.

Well, you do know that prejudice against Queers is JUST LIKE Prejudice against African Americans!!! The Civil War was essentially fought to set free Fudgepackers that were being enslaved by the floral and entertainment industries.

 

[ConHog]

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the first amendment.

The complaint had NOTHING to do with the first amendment. The woman was WRONG.

Suck on it.

yeah...i really misinterpreted your words....gee...how could i ever have thought you literally meant the case had nothing to "whatsoever" with the first amendment when you repeatedly said it...and you said the complaint....you lied ravi

instead of rationally discussing the issue and admitting you're wrong, you fuck off and ask if i have a serious mental disorder that is extremely harmful to those who have it.

you're seriously disturbed and i have no idea why you feel compelled to lie so much...

She's a pathological liar who feels some odd compulsion to lie in order to "win" a message board debate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I will bet you a month's suspension on the board. However, it will be a long time before this gets to SCOTUS, so let's save these posts.

Lets, but I don't think it will ever get to SCOTUS. No reason for them to review it because it is settled law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ravi, the school receives public funds, yours and my taxes. The school has violated the law in auditing the student's faith. If her attorneys can prove through internal memoranda that this student was set up to fail rather than for success, the school is going to lose in two areas, and of those is going to open them to serious damages to her. This is what happens when either the left or the right play agenda instead of the profession. What a violation of professional ethics.

Judge Upholds Dismissal of Counseling Student Who Balked at Treating Gay Clients - Faculty - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Summary judgment. That means the judge decided, correctly, that her case had no merit at all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The student may be homophobic based on religion, but a school that accepts state funds cannot use her religious belief to stop her. This sounds like agenda on behalf of the school and the faculty. She's going to win on appeal.

They used her refusal to even talk to a gay person to expel her. Are you going to claim that her religion requires her not to talk to gay people?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I will bet you a month's suspension on the board. However, it will be a long time before this gets to SCOTUS, so let's save these posts.

Lets, but I don't think it will ever get to SCOTUS. No reason for them to review it because it is settled law.

Just like Plessy v. Ferguson? OK.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The student may be homophobic based on religion, but a school that accepts state funds cannot use her religious belief to stop her. This sounds like agenda on behalf of the school and the faculty. She's going to win on appeal.

They used her refusal to even talk to a gay person to expel her. Are you going to claim that her religion requires her not to talk to gay people?

I think when her lawyers force the internal memoranda of the administrators and faculty into the open we are going to find out that it is far more than her not wanting to talk to somebody.

 

[Yurt]

what you guys say if you knew the school allowed someone who had recently lost a family member to refer a patient to someone else because the recent loss made it impossible for the student to adequately counsel

 

[Yurt]

The student may be homophobic based on religion, but a school that accepts state funds cannot use her religious belief to stop her. This sounds like agenda on behalf of the school and the faculty. She's going to win on appeal.

They used her refusal to even talk to a gay person to expel her. Are you going to claim that her religion requires her not to talk to gay people?

I think when her lawyers force the internal memoranda of the administrators and faculty into the open we are going to find out that it is far more than her not wanting to talk to somebody.

they should have already done that, the appellate courts are not where you fish for discovery

 

[Ravi]

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the first amendment.

The complaint had NOTHING to do with the first amendment. The woman was WRONG.

Suck on it.

yeah...i really misinterpreted your words....gee...how could i ever have thought you literally meant the case had nothing to "whatsoever" with the first amendment when you repeatedly said it...and you said the complaint....you lied ravi

instead of rationally discussing the issue and admitting you're wrong, you fuck off and ask if i have a serious mental disorder that is extremely harmful to those who have it.

you're seriously disturbed and i have no idea why you feel compelled to lie so much...

On top of everything else you've just insulted thousands of people...Aspergers is in many cases mild and while it causes a lot of anxiety it is not a "serious mental disorder" nor "extremely harmful" to those who have it.