Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - verbal213

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 54

edit: for what it's worth, my bf's bro got into wash u law 4 years ago with a 3.8, 161

Off the WL or straight up?

Law School Admissions / Re: THE MAIL CALL THREAD
« on: April 12, 2006, 12:01:55 PM »
Im still waiting for Duke.  Sadisitic Dukies...I shouldn't really have much of a chance there, I don't know why it's taking them so long to reject me... ??? ??? ???


Good luck guys - hopefully after April 15th rolls around you guys will get some good news  8)

Is that their seat deposit date?


Anyone who's interested can check out this link for the Rumsfeld v. FAIR decision he's referring to.  Also, the Oyez Project at is a free database on Con Law/SC cases.

Nice comeback by the Yanks.  Dang >:(

"As construed by modern jurisprudence" is the key phrase there.  Show me a case where the 13-15th and 19th amendments have been ruled to include sexual orientation and you might have a point.

Go Royals!!  Real Cards fans root for them any game except interleague against us!  Go big blue!

ok, so let's say being homosexual is a sin (i'm agnostic and dont know/dont care)...who are the christians to tell the homosexuals that "you're sinning, you MUST stop?"  i mean, if i CHOOSE to go to hell (if it exists), then shouldnt it be MY choice?  why should some other guy come along and say "you're not allowed to go to hell! you MUST take steps towards going to heaven?"

i do think that banning the speech altogether on campus is going a little far in terms of restricting free speech, but i cant say that this is completely unjustified since this type of speech has strong potential to become the basis for hate...yes, many forms of speech has this potential, but historically, homosexuals have been discriminated against and this is a "real" i think the school should get rid of this rule and judge free speech v hate speech on a case by case basis? yes, but i also agree w/their better safe than sorry approach

Maybe it is stupid to try to convince homosexuals that what they're doing is a sin.  Maybe it's even stupid to express what you think about anything at all, because why should anyone else care?  But we should still have the right to do it, based on the 1st Amenment!  And yes, of course the school has the right to determine on a case by case basis what should be allowed.


It's verbal harrassment.  Hogwash, you say?  I think that women deserve to learn in environments where their credentials aren't questioned based on sex, that minorities deserve to learn in environments where their credentials aren't questioned based on race, and that homosexuals deserve similar treatment.  Under no circumstances do I want my taxpayer dollars funding groups that discriminate, whether they be the KKK or groups that discriminate against gays.  But as long as you see homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, and not as a natural characteristic that some people are born with, we will never see eye to eye.

This has nothing to do with my opinion about homosexuality.  But how can you justify putting a publicly funded school's inclusion policy above the Bill of Rights?  These groups should be allowed to exercise their speech and determine who they want to be in their group.  I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that they should be allowed to do this, based on the Constitution.

Respecting free speech means allowing people to protest gay pride month as much as it means allowing people to have a gay pride month.  For the record, I'm an evangelical Christian, and the Bible does teach that homosexuality is a sin.  Whoever said that it doesn't teach the homosexuals are evil is correct.  The vast majority of Christians will tell you that the Bible teaches that all sins are equal. 

However, GIT is totally wrong to ban speaking out against homosexuality.  Of course you have to draw a reasonable line between harassment and speech.  But you can't just prevent some speech that people might be offended by.  That's the point of the 1st amendment.


I agree with the sentiments expressed that homosexual activity is the sin, and that ad hominem attacks on sinners are generally misdirected.  I would state, however, that since these sorts of Christians believe that gays are making an active choice to sin, and do not repent for their homosexual activity because they do not believe that it is a sin, that they cannot attain the kingdom of heaven because they do not ask forgiveness and give their lives over to Jesus.  No amount of legislation is going to get gays and Christians out of this quandary.

I think that based on our nation's non-discrimination laws, any public condonement of such discrimination should be illegal.  If you don't like it, work for policy change.

How is it discrimination?  It's just a statement of what they believe.  No one is saying that GIT should allow Christians to discriminate against gays.  All they want is to not be punished for stating their beliefs.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 54