• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the California state bar strike Matthew Gregory McLaughlin from the bar?

Should Matthew McLaughlin be disbarred?

  • No, because he is right. The gay agenda has to be exterminated just as he proposed.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other, namely ..................

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    15

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
29,957
Reaction score
14,680
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
It seems that in California you need to be of "good moral character", but the LGBT community wonders whether someone qualifies for this if he has proposed a statewide ballet that would allow gays and lesbians to be "put to death by bullets to the head".

Or as this idiot (and I am using it here instead of other words that IMHO suit this moron even better but that would be banned ;) from use on this or most other message boards/forums) put it:

Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than they all of us should be killed by God's wroth against us for the folly of tolerating wickedness in our midst, the people of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to head or by any other convenient method.

But the moron goes on, he does not think putting gays and lesbians to death for even something as sexually promiscuous as a kiss, he also wants to target the people "who propagandize that abomination":

No person shall distribute, perform or transmit sodomistic propaganda directly or indirectly by any means to any person under the age of majority. Sodomistic propaganda is defined as anything aimed at creating an interest in or an acceptance of human sexual relations other than between a man and a woman. Every offender shall be fined $1 million per occurence, and/or imprisoned up to 10 years, and/or expelled from the boundaries of the state of California for up to life.

And then he goes on that the federal government should not be allowed to ban such a law, he goes on that if the government does not enforce this law and remains inactive for a year, that the general public is allowed to kill these sodomites themselves without any fear of consequences. You know, a good old gay and lesbian killing fest without any fear of being arrested or imprisoned.

You can read his entire moronic law here: stupidest lawyer ever proposes legalizing hate crimes.

You can read more about this disgraceful excuse for a human being and a person who clearly does not belief in the United States or anything it stands for (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and a whole host of US laws/civil rights) here:

Matthew Gregory McLaughlin, California Lawyer, Proposes Ballot Measure Allowing Execution of Gays - NBC News

A lawyer in California is pushing a ballot measure to legalize killing gay people - Vox

So please discuss, should someone like that be allowed to practice law in California or has he well and truly gone beyond being of "good moral character"?
 
No. It's called The First Amendment. It doesn't matter how offensive the speech is, he has a right to use it.
 
No. It's called The First Amendment. It doesn't matter how offensive the speech is, he has a right to use it.

But does someone with such offensive opinions still comply with the "good moral character" provision that the bar stipulates?

I agree that he is free to have such horrendous opinions but should the bar have this kind of guy represent them?
 
But does someone with such offensive opinions still comply with the "good moral character" provision that the bar stipulates?

I agree that he is free to have such horrendous opinions but should the bar have this kind of guy represent them?

Lots of lawyers' activities could be viewed by someone or some group as not complying with the "good moral character" provision. If a lawyer has an affair, the pro-morality groups could demand he be disbarred. If a lawyer takes his family pet to a shelter, the pro-animal rights groups could demand he be disbarred. If a lawyer joins his Catholic clients at an anti-abortion protest, the pro-choice groups could demand that he be disbarred.

In the state of California, you can be convicted of a crime - up to an including non-violent felonies - and be admitted to the Bar. You can be a drug addict or alcoholic and still be admitted to the Bar.
 
But does someone with such offensive opinions still comply with the "good moral character" provision that the bar stipulates?

I agree that he is free to have such horrendous opinions but should the bar have this kind of guy represent them?

What about Gay lawyers or lawyers in general, for that matter?
 
It seems that in California you need to be of "good moral character", but the LGBT community wonders whether someone qualifies for this if he has proposed a statewide ballet that would allow gays and lesbians to be "put to death by bullets to the head".

Or as this idiot (and I am using it here instead of other words that IMHO suit this moron even better but that would be banned ;) from use on this or most other message boards/forums) put it:



But the moron goes on, he does not think putting gays and lesbians to death for even something as sexually promiscuous as a kiss, he also wants to target the people "who propagandize that abomination":



And then he goes on that the federal government should not be allowed to ban such a law, he goes on that if the government does not enforce this law and remains inactive for a year, that the general public is allowed to kill these sodomites themselves without any fear of consequences. You know, a good old gay and lesbian killing fest without any fear of being arrested or imprisoned.

You can read his entire moronic law here: stupidest lawyer ever proposes legalizing hate crimes.

You can read more about this disgraceful excuse for a human being and a person who clearly does not belief in the United States or anything it stands for (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and a whole host of US laws/civil rights) here:

Matthew Gregory McLaughlin, California Lawyer, Proposes Ballot Measure Allowing Execution of Gays - NBC News

A lawyer in California is pushing a ballot measure to legalize killing gay people - Vox

So please discuss, should someone like that be allowed to practice law in California or has he well and truly gone beyond being of "good moral character"?

I do not know about the guy, but I do know that any law with the phrase "good moral character" in it should be terminated.
 
So please discuss, should someone like that be allowed to practice law in California or has he well and truly gone beyond being of "good moral character"?

Good moral character and Lawyer are two things that do not seem to go together. If any lawyer should be disbarred it should be those who knowing defend guilty people in order to get them a slap on the wrist or off the hook.It should also be lawyers who run provoke and sue scams like the God hates fags group that should be disbarred. It should also be the lawyers who engage in litigious extortion and frivolous litigation should be barred.
 
No. It's called The First Amendment. It doesn't matter how offensive the speech is, he has a right to use it.

and the state has a right to ban him from the bar because of it too...
 
No, I think his initiative is hilarious. Better than any of mine. I hope he is dead serious about this. Trying to get money out of him to help qualify this thing.
 
Absolutely. Nobody said otherwise. The poll asked our opinions, didn't it?

You are absolutely right, I just asked the opinions of people.

And if I only wanted opinions who agree with mine I would have made a very different poll with no real options other than the ones that supported mine.

The only ones who have a qualified opinion are the people who run the bar in California and while my opinion is strike the gay-murder advocate, the bar is free to make up their own minds in this case because they will be deciding this Christian Sharia advocate's future as a lawyer.
 
You are absolutely right, I just asked the opinions of people.

And if I only wanted opinions who agree with mine I would have made a very different poll with no real options other than the ones that supported mine.

The only ones who have a qualified opinion are the people who run the bar in California and while my opinion is strike the gay-murder advocate, the bar is free to make up their own minds in this case because they will be deciding this Christian Sharia advocate's future as a lawyer.

Uh, yes, the only people whose opinions really matter are the only people who can actually disbar him, yes. Was that every in doubt?

So when Catholics lobby to have pro-abortion lawyers disbarred, you'll support them. When people ask for a defense attorney who disgustingly denigrates a rape victim in the name of defending his heinous client to be disbarred, you'll support them (by the way, that happens all the time). You'll support the Bar changing its rules so that anyone who ever was convicted of a crime, ever was addicted to drugs or alcohol, ever did anything even remotely considered to be of questionable moral character by anyone, etc. is disbarred.

There won't be any attorneys left in California.
 
We have the right to speak, but we dont have the right to offend someone, we can face a lot problems if we do that.
Lol, whut?

You mean the government can put you in jail or seize your property just for offending someone?
 
Uh, yes, the only people whose opinions really matter are the only people who can actually disbar him, yes. Was that every in doubt?

So when Catholics lobby to have pro-abortion lawyers disbarred, you'll support them. When people ask for a defense attorney who disgustingly denigrates a rape victim in the name of defending his heinous client to be disbarred, you'll support them (by the way, that happens all the time). You'll support the Bar changing its rules so that anyone who ever was convicted of a crime, ever was addicted to drugs or alcohol, ever did anything even remotely considered to be of questionable moral character by anyone, etc. is disbarred.

There won't be any attorneys left in California.

I was not aware that being supportive of a legal medical procedure was grounds to be accused of not being "of good moral character". Now if there was a pro-choice lawyer drafting a bill that would round up all pro-lifers who protest/hinder the legal procedure of abortion and shoot them, then yes, he should be struck from the bar too.
 
I was not aware that being supportive of a legal medical procedure was grounds to be accused of not being "of good moral character". Now if there was a pro-choice lawyer drafting a bill that would round up all pro-lifers who protest/hinder the legal procedure of abortion and shoot them, then yes, he should be struck from the bar too.

Catholics oppose abortion on moral (to them) grounds. And what this lawyer did was perfectly legal too.

So in other words, you want him disbarred because he offends you. In this country we still don't toss people in gulags or remove their license to make a living for offending someone else. Yet.
 
No. It's called The First Amendment. It doesn't matter how offensive the speech is, he has a right to use it.



The 1st Amendment protects your right to say what you want to say. It doesn't protect you from the consequences that usually follow opening your mouth before you turn your brain on. :roll:
 
The 1st Amendment protects your right to say what you want to say. It doesn't protect you from the consequences that usually follow opening your mouth before you turn your brain on. :roll:

Nobody said it did.
 
No. It's called The First Amendment. It doesn't matter how offensive the speech is, he has a right to use it.

Two separate issues. He absolutely has a right to free speech under the First Amendment. However, the First Amendment does not shield him from the consequences of that speech. I always find it fascinating when people try to hide behind the First Amendment to avoid the consequences of their action and then claim the "martyr" card when they suffer the blowblack from the exercise of their free speech rights.

That aside. No, I don't think the guy should be banned from the bar. I say give this man every opportunity to prove to everyone what an absolute idiot he is. No one here takes him serious. He has done more damage to his character by himself than any punishment that the bar could dish out to him.
 
Catholics oppose abortion on moral (to them) grounds. And what this lawyer did was perfectly legal too.

So in other words, you want him disbarred because he offends you. In this country we still don't toss people in gulags or remove their license to make a living for offending someone else. Yet.

Really? Calling for Sharia law and the murder of gays for the act of being gay with intent to be sexually aroused? That is not legal, that is a violation of anything decent. I doubt the catholic church would even condone such a horrendous crime.
 
We have the right to speak, but we dont have the right to offend someone, we can face a lot problems if we do that.

I have every right to offend anybody I want. If a person does not like that then they can piss off for all I care...
 
Really? Calling for Sharia law and the murder of gays for the act of being gay with intent to be sexually aroused? That is not legal, that is a violation of anything decent. I doubt the catholic church would even condone such a horrendous crime.

This isn't about criminal activity. What he did was offensive - it isn't criminal.

There are a lot of things that are considered offensive to someone. So if I understand you right, you support the disbarring of any lawyer who offends someone.
 
Back
Top Bottom