http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/gay-bullies-or-republican_b_856067.html

Somehow I think we need to strive for removal of emotions from the whole approach of dealing with criminality. We need a more scientific approach for reducing criminal activity, and for genuinely rehabilitating those who fall through the cracks. But that would require majority support from the American public, and that’s not likely to happen anytime soon because being “tough on crime” is a proven vote-getter for political candidates.

The Americans do not apply justice, only law through their courts.

Nor do they seek to be just in their criminal law, only to punish.

Interesting view…. we Americans are just fascinated to learn that we do not seek to be just.

…my position is neither unique nor without considerable basis.

I think you had a typo. I’m sure what you meant to say was that your position is neither unique nor without considerable bias.

He explains the situation, under American conditions, enormously better than I – a non-lawyer – every could.

Perhaps you can find the time to read it and we then might continue talking about this?

Nor do they seek to be just in their criminal law, only to punish.

This is a very great difference to the way your UK countries’ laws and German law approach things.

So very much, yes – if gays and the transgender were not stripped of their civil and human rights, etc. in the US and if the Christians attacking us played “fair”, then consistency would be more relevant.

Still and all – I firmly maintain that every single person, when a law rises above the mundane, chooses consciously to follow it or not.

The rest will have to await another forum for discussion – my position is neither unique nor without considerable basis.

By accepting ‘that is reality’, I take it you are that if consistency in matters of laws and justice was viewed as having intrinsic value, we would have stronger arguments against anti-gay laws.

I can’t force the Christians to stop disregarding laws which forbid their hatred.

What are the civil and criminal justice systems for then?

I do not think that inability of the client to pay is the only acceptable grounds for a lawyer to refuse a case. (For example, cases outside their field of expertise.) But you are correct I do not think lawyers should have a right to refuse a civil case.

I will take your word for it that my views differ from the U.S. Constitution. If one’s political views ought be consistent with the law as it stands then all new laws and changes to old laws must be a bad thing.

This seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable venue to discuss whether lawyers can refuse anti-gay (or pro-gay) cases. For which I see no need to apologise. Your various other statements regarding sub-human status in the U.S. and Tyranny in Britain are another matter.

If they weren’t, I wouldn’t be engaged in fighting the enemies of gays and the transgender.

Other Fred and were having a discussion. Obviously, this was the wrong forum for that and I apologize.