Joseph – Your first response to me was that the Yoder case does not mention the rejection of reliance on social services, which I provided direct quotes from the case to show that it factored into the decision (nevermind it is mentioned in 2 out of 4 points in the header). Now you start to argue that the weight this has in the decision. Unlike you, I do not have time to engage in discussions where the goalposts are moving. You obviously in your first comment, said something clearly very wrong. Your follow-up comment is also very wrong. You are welcome to find the decision in its entirety and to read it. I won’t be bothering to debate this with you.
If you were in court and these were your arguments, you would likely be engaging in frivolous litigation. What you are saying is simply nonsense.
Your other claims are nonsense as well. But as you will simply ignore inconvenient facts and change the arguments as you go along, there really is no point in debating you, unless someone is interested in endlessly showing how each argument you make is flawed.