Update on Supreme Court Case of the Praying Football Coach

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not sure how this is significant, though.  Litigation grinds forward at a different pace than the life of Joe Regular.  Are you suggesting that the suit could only have been maintained if he had stayed in Bremerton?  

Okay.  Are you suggesting that he was not a resident of Port Orchard when the case started?

Still not seeing a problem.  He had no idea how the case was going to turn out, and he had no obligation to remain in or around Kitsap County.  That he ultimately may choose to not resume employment in Bremerton does not render the case moot, as there were more issues at stake than just his job.

Also, Kennedy's attorneys filed a response with the Supreme Court:

The foregoing was filed on February 5, 2022.

As to final legal remedies, yes.  But that's not the sum total of why he filed suit.

Thanks,

-Smac

I was posting just about the facts of the story to see if the claims made about Kennedy were true (they were, he is not eager to get back to the job, he is eager to be on the speech making circuit and likely was from the beginning since he contacted media before there was an issue), though I have a big problem with a court accepting a lie to try a case (the lie I am talking about is his being fired).  I find the lie on the show about him being part of the community relevant to showing the kind of man Kennedy is, that is separate from the case. Kennedy has been established as a liar Imo.  This may be irrelevant in the end with the case, but I feel sorry for the students and the school district that had to deal with his manipulations.  Kennedy used the court system because he wanted a career change is how it appears to me, one more public and making much better money than being an assistant coach at some high school.  
 

And I think it just makes Christians in general look bad because it is presented as a religious liberty case and backed by a lot of vocal Christians, which just makes others see us as accepting ends justifies the means and all that, crying wolf, etc. 

Edited September 21, 2022 by Calm

[Stargazer]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t have a problem with such tactics except when they allow judges to discriminate in favor of one set of American citizens over another by insisting there be an actual termination on one case while pretending the guy isn’t lying in another because they want to make a particular ruling.  Aren’t our courts supposed to be impartial and decide on the facts of a case?

Wouldn't it be nice if it were always the case.

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then there is the problem that too often it is viewed as  great when one agrees with the interpretation of a law, it is good practice because the issue is important, but if one disagrees with a law, then we start hearing cries of activist judges from the same applauding the tactics previously. Wouldn’t it be better to be consistent so as to be sure there is nothing to whine about.

Plus what about the costs to the person or organization that is being lied about?…though this case I guess it ultimately was just the taxpayers, so no big deal. 

Obviously humans will be humans, I guess.

[smac97]

On 9/19/2022 at 10:44 AM, Danzo said:

most of these types of supreme court cases from the left and from the right are "stunts".

Some cases that end up before SCOTUS are indeed contrived.  Take, for example, Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 case that deemed as unconstitutional laws prohibiting consensual gay sex, and which paved the way for same-sex marriage.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

Arrest of Lawrence and Garner[edit]

On September 17, 1998, John Geddes Lawrence Jr.,^[17][18] a gay 55-year-old medical technologist, was hosting two gay acquaintances, Tyron Garner,^[19] age 31, and Robert Eubanks,^[20] 40, at his apartment in northeast Harris County, Texas,^[21] east of the Houston city limits.^[22] Lawrence and Eubanks had been friends for more than 20 years. Garner and Eubanks had a tempestuous on-again off-again romantic relationship since 1990. Lacking transportation home, the couple were preparing to spend the night. Eubanks, who had been drinking heavily, left to purchase a soda from a nearby vending machine. Apparently outraged that Lawrence had been flirting with Garner, he called police and reported "a black male going crazy with a gun" at Lawrence's apartment.^[23]

Four Harris County sheriff's deputies responded within minutes and Eubanks pointed them to the apartment. They entered the unlocked apartment toward 11 p.m. with their weapons drawn. In accordance with police procedures, the first to arrive, Joseph Quinn, took the lead both in approaching the scene and later in determining what charges to bring. He later reported seeing Lawrence and Garner having a&^l sex in the bedroom. A second officer reported seeing them engaged in o&^l sex, and two others did not report seeing the pair having sex. Lawrence repeatedly challenged the police for entering his home. Quinn had discretionary authority to charge them for a variety of offenses and to determine whether to arrest them. When Quinn considered charging them with having sex in violation of state law, he had to get an Assistant District Attorney to check the statutes to be certain they covered sexual activity inside a residence. He was told that Texas' anti-sodomy statute, the "Homosexual Conduct" law, made it a Class C misdemeanor if someone "engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex".^[24] The statute, Chapter 21, Sec. 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code, had been adopted in 1973 when the state revised its criminal code to end its proscription on heterosexual a&^l and o&^l intercourse.^[25]

Quinn decided to arrest Lawrence and Garner and charge them with having "deviate sex". In the separate arrest reports he filed for each, he wrote that he had seen the arrestee "engaged in deviate sexual conduct namely, a&^l sex, with another man".^[26] Lawrence and Garner were held in jail overnight. At a hearing the next day, they pleaded not guilty to a charge of "homosexual conduct". They were released toward midnight.^[27] Eubanks pleaded no contest to charges of filing a false police report. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail but was released early.^[28]

A few more details here (published in 2012) :

Quote

Much of what we know about Lawrence v. Texas proves, in Carpenter’s persuasive telling, to be untrue. What we know, or thought we knew, is this: on the evening of September 17, 1998, at a dingy, blue-collar apartment complex outside Houston, four sheriff’s deputies responded “to a report of ‘a black male going crazy with a gun.’ ” What they found, on entering the apartment of John Lawrence, was almost certainly not what even the most knowledgeable gay-rights advocates believe to this day. There was indeed a black man in the apartment—Tyron Garner—although he had no gun. But just what, exactly, were he and Lawrence doing at the time of their arrest? Deputy Joseph Quinn, the lead officer, claimed to have discovered the pair in flagrante delicto, engaged in a&^l intercourse. The other three deputies offered differing accounts, none mentioning a&^l sex (the author’s subsequent interviews turned up still further inconsistencies—as well as retractions).

And so, Carpenter explains, the entire story of one of the most significant civil rights cases of our time comes apart. Charged with violating Texas’s “Homosexual Conduct” law, Lawrence and Tyron immediately protested that they hadn’t once had sex—not on September 17, not ever. No matter: the men soon found themselves swept up in a legal drama of almost Shakespearean dimensions, the unwitting centerpieces of a case predicated on the very unlikely fact of their sexual liaison (and non-existent relationship). When, in 2003, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lawrence, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, had this to say: “When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct, the conduct can be but one element in a bond that is more enduring.” What had begun as a sodomy case ended up being about a great deal more: the recognition “that gay sex, too, might lead to—and might be an integral part of—lasting relationships.”

A more ingenious legal strategy is hard to imagine. Since 1986, when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Georgia’s sodomy law in Bowers v. Hardwick, lawyers at the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund had been waiting to reverse the Court’s ruling and with it strike down all sodomy laws. Now they had their chance. But it wasn’t quite the chance they’d been hoping for. “The background facts in Lawrence v. Texas do not make for an easily packaged story with idealized characters,” Carpenter writes. Lawrence and Garner, he adds, were scarcely the “poster people” on whom Lambda’s lawyers surely would have aspired to pin their hopes—presumably successful, respectable, white middle-class men in a committed relationship. But if by conventional standards Lawrence and Garner’s led less than exemplary lives, it’s worth pointing out that both became civil-rights heroes when they willingly lent their names to a sodomy case, which few comfortably situated defendants would have been likely to do.

For a case so conspicuously bound up with two men’s lives, and those of a substantial supporting cast, Lawrence v. Texas lacked visible key players to an incredible degree. In the general public’s eye—as in the eyes of most gays and lesbians—the trial has chiefly been about “constitutional theories and doctrines.” Not so. “It was,” Carpenter says, “about lives.” There can be no understanding Lawrence v. Texas without taking stock of the two men themselves. And so, in some of book’s most affecting pages, Carpenter reconstructs the hardscrabble lives of Lawrence and Garner, who no more sought the spotlight than they did careers as gay activists.

Carpenter’s crackerjack sleuthing gives Flagrant Conduct the delectable air of a fine mystery novel. In his practiced hands, legal arcana become as transparent as glass. But the book has large points to make as well. Carpenter, happily, is too fine a scholar to speculate overmuch on the ultimate fate of Proposition 8. But he’s right to emphasize Lawrence’s enormous impact on subsequent policy, including the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” statute. “Lawrence,” he writes, “did not cause all of this change, but it ratified and intensified the underlying cultural shift that made it possible. It also furnished a constitutional basis for further changes to come.” Exactly what the future holds for same-sex marriage is anyone’s guess. Dale Carpenter, in this outstanding book, tempers hope with caution. He reminds us that recent triumphs are more fragile than we are wise to forget.

And here:

Quote

When Deputy Joseph Richard Quinn and three other veteran Harris County, Texas, sheriff's deputies with guns drawn, burst into an apartment the night of September 17, 1998, searching for a black male with a gun, their shocking discovery in the back bedroom triggered a chain of events resulting in a 2003 U. S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas-that state laws criminalizing consensual, adult sodomy are unconstitutional. The landmark Lawrence ruling is the trigger event kicking away roadblocks to gay marriage. Lawrence remains in headlines today, in a larger cultural war, over adoption, employee benefits, the military's Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell policy, and related issues of judicial activism. In the Houston courthouse where Judge Law presided, rumors circulated that participants invited arrest in a prearranged setup to test the constitutionality of Texas' sodomy statute. The defendants and their attorneys consistently deny that the arrests were manufactured for the purpose of litigation. The Supreme Court based its historic decision on right to privacy. But if rumors of invited arrest are true, there was no right to privacy, and America's highest court may never have heard the case, or may have decided it differently. Was the U. S. Supreme Court fooled big time by a choreographed case? Judge Law, a former journalist, decided to investigate. Lawrence passed through her court shortly before she took office. Join Judge Law as she dusts off her journalist skills to unravel the case, interviewing everyone. Was Lawrence prearranged? Absolutely yes, said one Texas appeals-court justice who ruled on Lawrence. Even the non-attorney justice of the peace in the lower court where the case began has lingering concerns about inconsistencies in the arrest events. Based on her investigation, Judge Law believes the case was a setup. You be the judge.

And here:

Quote

It was in the Houston courthouse where Law presided as judge that she first heard rumors that the key figures in what became the landmark Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court case actually invited arrest in a pre-arranged setup designed from the start to test the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws.

What the journalist-turned-prosecutor-turned-judge-turned-journalist found, after interviewing most of the key players, including those in the Texas homosexual subculture that produced the case, is that the Supreme Court, possibly for the first time in history, ruled on a case "with virtually no factual underpinnings."

When the Supreme Court decided to hear the challenge to Texas anti-sodomy laws in 2002, the only facts for the high court to review were Deputy Joseph Richard Quinn's 69-word, handwritten, probable cause affidavits – written within hours of the arrests of the three principals in the case Sept. 17, 1998.

There had been no trial. There had been no stipulations to facts by the state or the defendants. The defendants simply pleaded no contest at every phase of the proceedings. It was quite simply the misdemeanor dream case homosexual activists in Texas and nationwide had been dreaming about. Or had they done more than dream about it? Had they schemed about it, too?

Nearly everyone familiar with the case that set off the nation's same-sex marriage craze knows there were two defendants in the case – two men, John Geddes Lawrence, 60, and Tyron Garner, 36. Forgotten, until Law's book, was a third man arrested at Lawrence's apartment that night – Robert Eubanks, who was beaten to death three years before the case was heard by the Supreme Court.

It was Eubanks who took the fall for calling the police the night of the "incident." He said he was the one who placed the call reporting a man firing a gun in an apartment building. When police officers responded to the felony call, Eubanks was outside Lawrence's apartment directing police to the unit – still insisting a man with a gun was threatening neighbors.

When police approached Lawrence's apartment, they found the front door open. When they entered the apartment, they found a man calmly talking on the telephone in the kitchen, also motioning to the officers to a bedroom in the rear.

Despite repeated shouts by officers identifying themselves as of sheriff's deputies from the moment they entered the Houston apartment, no one seemed surprised to see them – especially not Lawrence and Garner.

The veteran police officers who entered the bedroom that night were unprepared for what they were about to see.

"You could tell me that something was happening like 'there's a guy walking down the street with his head in his hand,' and I would believe it," said Quinn, who had 13 years on the force the night he entered Lawrence's apartment. "As a police officer, I've seen things that aren't even imagined."

But what he saw that night shocked him, searing images into his mind that seem as vivid today as the day they happened.

Quinn and his fellow officers, expecting to see an armed man, perhaps holding a hostage or in a prone position ready to fire at them, instead, found was Lawrence having a%^l sex with Garner.

And they didn't stop – despite repeated warnings from officers.

"Lawrence and Garner did not seem at all surprised to see two uniformed sheriff's deputies with drawn guns walk into their bedroom," Quinn recalls.

Quinn shouted to them to stop. They continued.

"Most people, in situations like that, try to cover up, hide or look embarrassed," explained Quinn. "Lawrence and Garner didn't look at all surprised to see us. They just kept doing it."

Finally, Quinn took action. He told them: "I don't believe this! What are you doing? Did you not hear us announce ourselves? Don't you have the common decency to stop?" But still Lawrence and Garner did not stop until Quinn physically moved them apart.

Lawrence and Garner would be booked that night for a class C misdemeanor punishable by only a fine. Eubanks was charged with filing a false police report because there were no guns found. Lawrence and Garner would become celebrity heroes of the homosexual activist movement. Eubanks would wind up beaten to death – with Garner a possible suspect in a case that remains unsolved.

...

If the Lawrence case were known to be a setup during the five years following the arrests, then the defendants would not have a right-to-privacy claim, and the U.S. Supreme Court probably would never hear the case.

After that historic ruling, Law decided to investigate a case that had never before been subject to any investigation. By then she was a visiting judge, sitting for judges who are on vacation or ill.

"I researched and wrote 'Sex Appealed' because I know many of the Lawrence participants, I had the time, contacts, and the journalistic background to investigate, and, as a lawyer and judge, I felt an obligation to history to find out what really happened behind the scenes in one of the most culture-altering cases in America's legal history," Law said. "I am the judge who, after the internationally publicized case was concluded at the highest level, embarked on her own investigation of rumors about the case assigned to her Texas court."

 

Along the way, Law is not only persuasive that Lawrence was planned from the start – that police, in effect, were entrapped into witnessing a crime because the homosexual activists needed a test case – but also gets support for her theory from other judges involved in the saga.

What would it mean, two years after Lawrence v. Texas, if Supreme Court justices learned they had been fooled, manipulated, played like a radio?

Did the justices know that a key witness in the case had been murdered and that one of the defendants appeared to be a key suspect?

Were they aware one of the lawyers that handled the sodomy case for Lawrence and Garner also represented Garner in the unsolved murder death of Eubanks?

How could there be an issue of privacy in a case in which police were invited, encouraged, begged to enter an apartment and directed to the bedroom where the unlawful sexual activity was taking place?

Law also finds that homosexual activists nationwide and, specifically, in Houston were actively searching for that "perfect" test case when Lawrence happened to come along.

As the U.S. Supreme Court is being reshaped through the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor and the death of William Rehnquist, some are wondering if it's possible the court could "second-guess" itself in the Lawrence ruling – one that turned out to be among the most controversial decisions in years.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was posting just about the facts of the story to see if the claims made about Kennedy were true (they were, he is not eager to get back to the job, he is eager to be on the speech making circuit and likely was from the beginning since he contacted media before there was an issue),

I'd prefer to see a timeline here.  As of February 2022, he was "eager to get back to the job."  How do you know he was not?  And if he subsequently changed his mind, does that tarnish his honesty?

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

though I have a big problem with a court accepting a lie to try a case (the lie I am talking about is his being fired).  

Looks like it wasn't a lie.  

I haven't examined that issue much.  I did read this Seattle Times article, which seems to be trying a bit too hard to craft a narrative rather than just report the news:

Quote

It’s an increasingly surreal situation for the Bremerton schools. They were ordered to “reinstate Coach Kennedy to a football coaching position,” according to court documents. But the now-famous coach is out on the conservative celebrity circuit, continuing to tell a story about “the prayer that got me fired” — even though Bremerton never actually fired him.

In 2015, he was put on paid leave near the end of the season after holding a series of prayer sessions on the field with students and state legislators. He still got paid for his full assistant coach contract, about $5,000. High school assistants often work on yearly deals, and Kennedy, at odds with the head coach and aggrieved by what had happened, never reapplied to work the 2016 season.

“He was not terminated,” Bevers said. The head coach at the time had moved on, as did most of the coaching staff.

This did not stop Kennedy’s lawyers from telling the Supreme Court repeatedly that he was fired.

“The record is clear that Coach Kennedy was fired for that midfield prayer,” lawyer Paul Clement told the nine justices in the first 15 seconds of the oral arguments of the case in April. The words “fired,” “fire” or “firing” were used 16 times in the hour and a half session.

It wasn’t true though. The district’s lawyers tried to correct the record, to no avail.

“You can’t sue them for failing to rehire you if you didn’t apply,” one lawyer, Mercer Island’s Michael Tierney, argued during a lower court session. “The District didn’t get an application from him, had four positions to fill and filled them with people who had applied. It didn’t fail to rehire him.”

The Supreme Court simply ignored this inconvenient fact — along with a host of others. At one point during oral arguments, as a different school district attorney was saying the narrative that had been spun didn’t fit with the facts — that the coach’s prayers were neither silent nor solitary, nor was he fired — Justice Samuel Alito interrupted him, saying “I know that you want to make this very complicated.”

Alito persisted in asking about the coach being fired — six times he said it, to the point that the lawyer finally corrected him. Which is a touchy thing to do with a Supreme Court justice.

“It’s not a question of firing, and in fact, he was put on paid leave,” the lawyer pleaded, fruitlessly, to Alito.

Well, that sounds bad.

But then I came across this article:

Quote

No parent or student filed a complaint about the post-game prayers. 

But in 2015, the Bremerton School District learned about the prayers and told Kennedy he no longer could pray with students.  

“It was really simple for me to agree with them and say, ‘That’s not a problem.’ I never prayed with the kids ever again,” Kennedy recalls.  

Kennedy continued to pray by himself after games, he says, but soon “school lawyers got involved, and they kind of kept moving the goal post.”  

Supervisors told Kennedy that he could “no longer pray even by myself if people could see me,” he says. “And that’s where I just had to draw a line.”  

The school district placed Kennedy on administrative leave because he refused to stop taking a knee in prayer after football games. When it came time for his contract to be renewed, he says, his year-end evaluation read “in great, big, bold letters … , ‘Do not rehire.’”  

And here:

Quote

November 20, 2015

District Fires Coach Kennedy

BSD places “Do Not Rehire…” recommendation in Coach Kennedy’s annual coaching evaluation. As a result, Coach Kennedy is fired from his job as a football coach at Bremerton High School with no chance of being rehired for the next season.

• Legal Citation: E.R. 333-35

A detail from the above hyperlink:

Does any of this move the needle for you re: your characterization of Mr. Kennedy as a liar?

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I find the lie on the show about him being part of the community relevant to showing the kind of man Kennedy is, that is separate from the case. 

I'm not sure what you are referencing here.  From his filing with the Supreme Court (emphases added) :

Quote

Had the district picked up the phone and called Kennedy’s counsel at any point during its extra-record investigation, it could have saved itself a lot of trouble, for Coach Kennedy and his wife have never concealed the fact that they presently live in Florida.  Indeed, his wife resigned from her job in the Bremerton School District to make the move.  Dec.2, ¶10.  But as counsel would have confirmed just as readily, the relocation to Florida is not permanent, and Kennedy stands ready, willing, and able to move back to Bremerton as soon as humanly possible should he prevail in this litigation and be permitted to resume his coaching duties at BHS without having to sacrifice his sincerely held religious beliefs.  Dec.2-3, ¶¶13-14. And if the district would not take Kennedy and his counsel at their word, they could have provided the district with the kind of sworn declaration attached to this response, which still would have avoided a frivolous filing and a public airing of the details of the Kennedys’ private life.  

As the declaration details, the Kennedys have always intended to return home to Bremerton if Coach Kennedy’s legal rights are vindicated and his job restored.  Kennedy grew up in Bremerton; he returned to Bremerton after his military service ended in 2008; he is a BHS graduate with a passion for coaching football (in person) at his alma mater (whatever the annual stipend); much of the Kennedys’ family— including three of their four children, their grandchildren, and Kennedy’s father and birth mother—continues to live in the Bremerton area; their friends are in Bremerton; and their church family is there too.  Dec.3, ¶15.  

What evidence do you have that he was not "part of the community"?

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Kennedy has been established as a liar Imo.  

I guess I need to review the evidence more.  I see nothing dishonest about him moving to Florida.  I have yet to see evidence that he lied when he said in February that he "remains ready, willing, and able to return to his job just as soon as his constitutional rights are vindicated."  I have yet to see evidence that he lied about community ties.

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

This may be irrelevant in the end with the case, but I feel sorry for the students and the school district that had to deal with his manipulations. 

Is anyone else culpable for such discomfort?

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

And I think it just makes Christians in general look bad because it is presented as a religious liberty case and backed by a lot of vocal Christians, which just makes others see us as accepting ends justifies the means and all that, crying wolf, etc. 

Is it possible that Mr. Kennedy was aware of the "Do not rehire" recommendation on the "Coaching Evaluation Form?"  Particularly given the "General Comments" stuff?

Would you apply for a job with Bremerton School District knowing about such a recommendation?

And if you saw re-applying for a job under those circumstances, would that make you a "liar" if you later characterized your cessation of employment as a "firing?"

I agree that Christians ought to hold themselves to high ethical standards.  I also acknowledge that litigation can skew perceptions and perspectives.  But I'm not sure your characterization of Mr. Kennedy as being an established "liar" is fair.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Some cases that end up before SCOTUS are indeed contrived.  Take, for example, Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 case that deemed as unconstitutional laws prohibiting consensual gay sex, and which paved the way for same-sex marriage.

From Wikipedia:

A few more details here (published in 2012) :

And here:

And here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Contrived by whom? Most are agreed if anything was made up it was the initial accusations. The deputies all disagreed about what happened with no one but the lead officer saying there was any “sodomy” going on and the lead officer was supposedly well-known for making up charges if he was pissed off. An interracial gay couple would have done that. It is true that the defendants did appear to cooperate with gay right’s groups to kick the case further up but the original defendants deliberately setting this up? Not likely at all.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Contrived by whom? Most are agreed if anything was made up it was the initial accusations. The deputies all disagreed about what happened with no one but the lead officer saying there was any “sodomy” going on and the lead officer was supposedly well-known for making up charges if he was pissed off. An interracial gay couple would have done that. It is true that the defendants did appear to cooperate with gay right’s groups to kick the case further up but the original defendants deliberately setting this up? Not likely at all.

Didn’t you read SMAC’s sources? Lawrence set the whole thing up by calling police on himself. Then he was caught having s*x, which he denied. But actually he wasn’t having s*x, because only the lead detective saw something. But he definitely set the whole thing up. To overturn the statute.  

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Didn’t you read SMAC’s sources? Lawrence set the whole thing up by calling police on himself. Then he was caught having s*x, which he denied. But actually he wasn’t having s*x, because only the lead detective saw something. But he definitely set the whole thing up. To overturn the statute.  

I did but I have also read other sources.

The last two sources smac cites that set up the contrived by the defendant theory are a book by someone that is a hit piece on how contrived cases are inherently wrong and that sodomy is disgusting. Contrived cases are not universally wrong and it is not a scandal that this one might be but it is clear the writer is a little unhinged. The main source is the final one smac cited, WND (World Net Daily). Something being published by WND is of no value whatsoever in establishing anything as a fact. I think smac should be embarrassed that he quoted those charlatan conspiracy nuts.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I did but I have also read other sources.

The last two sources smac cites that set up the contrived by the defendant theory are a book by someone that is a hit piece on how contrived cases are inherently wrong and that sodomy is disgusting. Contrived cases are not universally wrong and it is not a scandal that this one might be but it is clear the writer is a little unhinged. The main source is the final one smac cited, WND (World Net Daily). Something being published by WND is of no value whatsoever in establishing anything as a fact. I think smac should be embarrassed that he quoted those charlatan conspiracy nuts.

Sorry I left off the sarcasm tag. 

[Calm]

I actually don’t have an automatic problem with setting stuff up, Rosa Parks was essentially a setup, planned down to choosing her to do it over another woman. I do have an issue with creating false narratives about what actually happened even in the cases where I understand why it was felt it was needed (the tired black woman at the end of the day asked to give up her seat for a white man goes straight to the heart of injustice and will appeal to those who aren’t going to be touched by the argument that discrimination is simply inappropriate when all pay for the service, are supposed to be equally represented by the government, etc.).
 

 

Edited September 22, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sorry I left off the sarcasm tag. 

I figured it might be sarcasm but wanted to point out the flaws either way.