Ground Zero mosque gets approved by NYC Community Board (amendment, discrimination, bomb)

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by betamanlet

Not if they can build it some place else. Is there an Islam specific reason why the mosque MUST be located in that spot?

Well, they have a place where they would like to build a mosque. The burden is not on them, but those who oppose it.

And I can't believe you claimed to be a lawyer.

[Strel]

Originally Posted by betamanlet

Not if they can build it some place else. Is there an Islam specific reason why the mosque MUST be located in that spot?

Wrong. You cannot dictate where they build anything based on their religion.


You cannot make ANY decision based on that if your are a governmental entity, outside of some compelling state interest - which is not present here.

There is no way in hell you ever went to law school.

[betamanlet]

Originally Posted by Strel

Wrong. You cannot dictate where they build anything based on their religion.


You cannot make ANY decision based on that if your are a governmental entity, outside of some compelling state interest - which is not present here.

There is no way in hell you ever went to law school.

So if there were a religion that required the tanning of leathers in their sanctuaries, that could be built anywhere, despite tanneries being nuisances?

[Feel The Love]

Originally Posted by betamanlet

So a mosque belongs at ground zero while a church cannot even be built anywhere inside of saudi arabia?

Not sure if you are aware, but these are two different countries.

[Strel]

Originally Posted by betamanlet

So if there were a religion that required the tanning of leathers in their sanctuaries, that could be built anywhere, despite tanneries being nuisances?

Again with an example that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. If the regulation against tanneries was content neutral in regards to religion, they may well have to locate their mosque-***-tannery somewhere else.

Not to mention your example is extremely stupid considering that only thing in a mosque less objectionable to a Muslim than a tannery would be a pig farm.

What you propose is NOT CONTENT NEUTRAL AND THAT IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM. You do not even seem to be familiar with the nomenclature used by the courts to describe these issues...

So please stop telling people you are a lawyer, you are embarassing real lawyers. But if you want to persist in your little charade, find a case that supports your nonsense and we can resolve this First Amendment issue the way professionals do.

I've got a bored law clerk hanging around today. I'm sure she's be interested in tearing you a new one.

[Feel The Love]

Originally Posted by Strel

Again with an example that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. If the regulation against tanneries was content neutral in regards to religion, they may well have to locate their mosque-***-tannery somewhere else.

Not to mention your example is extremely stupid considering that only thing in a mosque less objectionable to a Muslim than a tannery would be a pig farm.

What you propose is NOT CONTENT NEUTRAL AND THAT IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM. You do not even seem to be familiar with the nomenclature used by the courts to describe these issues...

So please stop telling people you are a lawyer, you are embarassing real lawyers. But if you want to persist in your little charade, find a case that supports your nonsense and we can resolve this First Amendment issue the way professionals do.

I've got a bored law clerk hanging around today. I'm sure she's be interested in tearing you a new one.

You didn't know? Everybody here is a self made, pull 'em up by their boot straps millionaire, lawyer, doctor...you name it.

[betamanlet]

Originally Posted by Strel

Again with an example that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. If the regulation against tanneries was content neutral in regards to religion, they may well have to locate their mosque-***-tannery somewhere else.

Not to mention your example is extremely stupid considering that only thing in a mosque less objectionable to a Muslim than a tannery would be a pig farm.

What you propose is NOT CONTENT NEUTRAL AND THAT IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM. You do not even seem to be familiar with the nomenclature used by the courts to describe these issues...

So please stop telling people you are a lawyer, you are embarassing real lawyers. But if you want to persist in your little charade, find a case that supports your nonsense and we can resolve this First Amendment issue the way professionals do.

I've got a bored law clerk hanging around today. I'm sure she's be interested in tearing you a new one.

Do you personally attack opposing counsel?

You do realize it violates the rules here, right?

[Strel]

Originally Posted by betamanlet

Do you personally attack opposing counsel?

You do realize it violates the rules here, right?

When they are obviously liars, yes.

Report me then, if you cannot back up your claim to be a lawyer.

Admit it. You got cornered on an issue about which you knew nothing, and given your penchant for employing logical fallacies as arguments, you went straight for the appeal to authority line.

You said: " have a feeling I know a lot more about constitutional law than you do given I'm an attorney."

And then proceeded to make posts that included statements that no law graduate would ever make, thus calling your statement into question.

Well this is your chance to rehabilitate yourself, or to withdraw your claim.

Have at it.

[Strel]

Originally Posted by betamanlet

Do you personally attack opposing counsel?

You do realize it violates the rules here, right?

I take it you are declining my challenge then?

Not up to a little legal research?

[betamanlet]

The Associated Press: Jordanian man pleads guilty in Dallas bombing plot

show me the christian fundamentalist counterpart to this story..