Was 2020 election stolen or not?

Flash said:
The court said she has the constitutional right to display that flag. A child she has custody does not apply to all other U. S. residents.
Click to expand...

And they did that to protect a human child from harm



In so doing


Saying clearly that flag can cause harm
 
Flash said:
If 300 million Americans choose to display the Confederate flag they are all within their constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Apparently not, because 5 judges just ruled that flag causes harm to people, therefore it poses a threat, therefore it is not Constitutionally protected speech.

So you have a right to wave that dumb flag so long as you're not causing anyone harm when you do it, but the thing is that the flag is inherently harmful, so you will always be causing someone harm when you wave it.


If 1,000 families have child custody disputes their 1st Amendment views are not relevant to the child's welfare.
Click to expand...

Right, but their actions are.

And waving that dumb flag around is an action, is it not?

So if that action causes someone harm, then shouldn't it be ordered down because it's harmful?
 
LV426 said:
Not if that symbol or flag causes harm, which the 5 judges in this case determined it did.

So if it causes harm to a kid, it also causes harm to adults.
Click to expand...

The court did not say that. Kids are different than adults and are subject to more protection. You are making a huge jump in logic that is completely contrary to the court's opinion.

The father only appealed when the child's attorney wanted the mother's home to be the primary residence. If they had joint custody and her home was not the primary residence the flag is not an issue.
 
Flash said:
The court said she has the constitutional right to display that flag. A child she has custody does not apply to all other U. S. residents.
Click to expand...

That flag was deemed harmful to a human


Face what happened


It established in the law the precedence that is by now in the law
 
Port Tack said:
What a fucking juvenile retort. And 2 more fucking juveniles thought enough of it to thank it?
Click to expand...

^Dishonest, low IQ, hypocritical dumb fuck thinks LyingVagina426's posts aren't juvenile or moronic rants.

tenor.gif

tenor.gif
 
evince said:
And they did that to protect a human child from harm
In so doing
Saying clearly that flag can cause harm
Click to expand...

But if that flag had been there when she was given custody it would not be causing harm. It is only an issue because it resulted in a change in conditions of the home. If the child was not "bi-racial" it would not be an issue.
 
Flash said:
The court did not say that. Kids are different than adults and are subject to more protection. You are making a huge jump in logic that is completely contrary to the court's opinion.

The father only appealed when the child's attorney wanted the mother's home to be the primary residence. If they had joint custody and her home was not the primary residence the flag is not an issue.
Click to expand...



Prescience is now set in the law record of harm



That is how LAW works dude
 
evince said:
That flag was deemed harmful to a human

Face what happened

It established in the law the precedence that is by now in the law
Click to expand...

It also said she (and all other Americans and non-citizen residents) have the constitutional right to display the flag.

Unless they are in a child custody situation with a black or bi-racial kid there is no precedent that applies. They never said the flag was harmful in general and we all know we have the right to display anything we choose no matter how objectionable.

How have you ever been harmed by a symbol? Hurting your feelings don't count.
 
Flash said:
It also said she (and all other Americans and non-citizen residents) have the constitutional right to display the flag.

Unless they are in a child custody situation with a black or bi-racial kid there is no precedent that applies. They never said the flag was harmful in general and we all know we have the right to display anything we choose no matter how objectionable.

How have you ever been harmed by a symbol? Hurting your feelings don't count.
Click to expand...

Why remove the child if there is no harm in that flag




Get it



Wether they wanted to or not they set precedence


they did
 
evince said:
Prescience is now set in the law record of harm

That is how LAW works dude
Click to expand...

Only if there is another case involving a bi-racial child custody and a Confederate flag.

Precedent can be changed by another court.

You and LV426 are not even close on this one and ignore the court's clear statement that she has the constitutional right to display the flag.
 
evince said:
Why remove the child if there is no harm in that flag
Get it
Wether they wanted to or not they set precedence they did
Click to expand...

If the mother was a drunk and they removed the child from her home that does not mean no Americans can drink alcohol because it is harmful.

You are arguing what you would like the case to say, you are not arguing anything that has to do with law.
 
Flash said:
If I want to display a Confederate flag in a neighborhood of black people I am free do to so as long as I exhibit no actions threatening those neighbors.And no, the Confederate flag is not an "inherent threat."
Click to expand...

But you just argued it was in this case from NY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top