Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

underpants

(182,945 posts)
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 04:48 PM Sep 2015

Oh yeah! Davis's attorney ...goes to the Hindu argument.

Davis' attorney Roger Gannam said that this is the first time in history that an American has been jailed for believing in their conscience.

3:41 p.m. Time.com on the Davis case:

"Suppose the Rowan County Clerk was a devout Hindu. It would not be permissible to force her to eat beef at an office function, for that would violate the Hindu taboo on harming cows. But that official would not be allowed to refuse to issue a marriage license to a couple with plans to serve beef at their wedding reception, nor could a Hindu official deny a construction permit just because the building is intended to be a steakhouse."

28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Oh yeah! Davis's attorney ...goes to the Hindu argument. (Original Post) underpants Sep 2015 OP
Roger Gannam is apparently A Idiot gratuitous Sep 2015 #1
Thoreau? underpants Sep 2015 #3
Ali never served jail time, although he was sentenced to 5 years. He was on bail while appeals mnhtnbb Sep 2015 #17
This is making me dizzy yuiyoshida Sep 2015 #2
I feel her pain. I was denied a scholarship to Julliard just because I can't read music Xipe Totec Sep 2015 #4
LOL underpants Sep 2015 #5
Yup. Textbook example of discrimination you have there. SO not fair. closeupready Sep 2015 #11
there is a cow joke here somewhere olddots Sep 2015 #6
Clearly F'ed up in the head! n/t RKP5637 Sep 2015 #7
I usually defend attorneys no matter how absurd they may seem, because their job is to randys1 Sep 2015 #8
I think in the rush of things, the attribution is messed up jberryhill Sep 2015 #10
Thank you. That was breaking my brain. beac Sep 2015 #19
first he uses Jews and Nazis and now he talks of Hindus Angry Dragon Sep 2015 #9
That guys law school's accreditation should be revoked LostOne4Ever Sep 2015 #12
Oh...so...THIS. Iggo Sep 2015 #14
Well, duh -- of course forcing Hindus to eat beef on the job is wrong rocktivity Sep 2015 #13
Uh, no. Thousands of Americans have been jailed as conscientous objectors when refusing to go to war mnhtnbb Sep 2015 #15
This NY Times comment answers Gannam's argument pretty decisively, I think markpkessinger Sep 2015 #16
PERFECT! nt LostOne4Ever Sep 2015 #18
It's the Chewbacca Defense! scarletwoman Sep 2015 #20
Yes! underpants Sep 2015 #22
me too! dorkzilla Sep 2015 #26
If I was an attorney, specifically Mr. Gannam, I'd be ashamed to make that argument steve2470 Sep 2015 #21
University of Florida underpants Sep 2015 #23
1999 graduate of UF Law School steve2470 Sep 2015 #24
Thanks underpants Sep 2015 #25
Simple False Analogy ... Trajan Sep 2015 #27
Holy cow. betsuni Sep 2015 #28

mnhtnbb

(31,408 posts)
17. Ali never served jail time, although he was sentenced to 5 years. He was on bail while appeals
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 05:37 PM
Sep 2015

were pending all the way to the Supreme Court.

But thousands of other CO's have been jailed in this country.

Xipe Totec

(43,890 posts)
4. I feel her pain. I was denied a scholarship to Julliard just because I can't read music
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 04:53 PM
Sep 2015

Or play an instrument.

Or carry a tune.

Totally unfair.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
8. I usually defend attorneys no matter how absurd they may seem, because their job is to
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 04:58 PM
Sep 2015

represent their client no matter what.

And his argument here makes no sense, at all.

I cant find the connection to this case to his example.

I am simply unable to figure it out, and I think he cant figure it out either and has NO defense AT ALL so he came up with this nonsense.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
10. I think in the rush of things, the attribution is messed up
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 05:02 PM
Sep 2015

...since that is an argument for the plaintiffs in this case, and not the defendants.

beac

(9,992 posts)
19. Thank you. That was breaking my brain.
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 05:41 PM
Sep 2015

Now we'll have to see if the reporter is a bad transcriber or the lawyer is a complete idiot.

LostOne4Ever

(9,290 posts)
12. That guys law school's accreditation should be revoked
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 05:08 PM
Sep 2015

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]There are so many things wrong with that analogy[/font]

1) Eating beef is not an essential part of her job
2) If it was a part of her job not eating beef affects no one but her
3) Not eating beefs does not force her beliefs on others
4) Not eating beef does not deny others their fundamental rights
5) There has been no SCotUS ruling on eating beef...


[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Religious nuts arguments just get dumber and dumber.[/font]

rocktivity

(44,580 posts)
13. Well, duh -- of course forcing Hindus to eat beef on the job is wrong
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 05:12 PM
Sep 2015

because in America, you're not supposed to have someone else's religious views thrust upon you. However, by refusing to issue marriage certificates for religious reasons, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HIS CLIENT IS DOING.

It is none of the clerk's business what ANYONE plans to serve at their wedding. And if the steakhouse is in a vicinity where enough people believe that eating beef is objectionable, or that the steak it serves isn't worth eating, Mr. Davis can rest assured that they will be out of business soon enough.

Public servants are in the business of serving the public -- ALL the public, not the segments of it they find most appealing -- or profitable.


rocktivity

mnhtnbb

(31,408 posts)
15. Uh, no. Thousands of Americans have been jailed as conscientous objectors when refusing to go to war
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 05:34 PM
Sep 2015

This guy is really an ignorant, bigoted, moron. Good grief.

The New York Peace Society, founded in 1815 by David Low Dodge, was the first official peace society in America, but the true story of pacifism should begin with certain Native Americans who wished to live in peace. Since then, hundreds of peace groups and thousands of individuals have worked to promote peace and work against war, violence and injustice, following the voice of their consciences -- sometimes to the point of persecution and imprisonment. This page is intended as only a brief introduction to the historical setting for the topic of conscientious objection to war. More information should be sought from the links offered on other pages, as well as secondary published sources available from many libraries.


http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/conscientiousobjection/co%20website/pages/HistoryNew.htm

markpkessinger

(8,409 posts)
16. This NY Times comment answers Gannam's argument pretty decisively, I think
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 05:36 PM
Sep 2015

Last edited Thu Sep 3, 2015, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)

DT New York 3 hours ago

I am an Orthodox Jew. I can't eat milk and meat together as per my own personal beliefs. But if I were a county clerk, and someone wanted to open up a cheeseburger joint, I'd have absolutely zero right as a government official to deny that person his permit on the grounds of the rules of my religion.

dorkzilla

(5,141 posts)
26. me too!
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 09:54 PM
Sep 2015

I can find something relevant in everyday life that calls to mind either South Park or Monty Python.

steve2470

(37,457 posts)
21. If I was an attorney, specifically Mr. Gannam, I'd be ashamed to make that argument
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 07:48 PM
Sep 2015
Attorneys are supposed to be intelligent and logical in their arguments. That argument, as well as the Nazi one, makes no sense whatsoever.

Paging his law school, revoke his diploma ASAP.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Oh yeah! Davis's attorney...