Reply To: Justice in Balto.?

frumnotyeshivish -“Health – discriminating against a person who won’t work Saturday when one has a reason why having an employee who works on Saturday fills a need, has nothing to do with anti-semitism. Nothing. Why should the Government or an employer give you special treatment? What about the next person, who doesn’t want to work on Saturday b/c they just want off? Must they be hired too?”

Your argument holds no water because it’s a Federal law. They must accommodate religious beliefs unless they can prove doing so will cause them minimal hardship. I didn’t write the law, the Gov. did. The Antisemitism is that they didn’t uphold the law in the federal courts.

“As far as your attack on who has more ahavas yisroel for whatever sect, the irony is that your stereotyping of the sects is so hateful.”

Calling s/o MO is just differentiating between different types of Jews. Stereotyping has a different connotation. You hate this Shomrim guy obviously because you can’t see that this is a miscarriage of justice. Why do you hate him? Do you hate e/o besides yourself?

“There is a question of fact here as to what happened.”

Yes and there was testimony on the facts of the incident.

“The judge was supposed to be the fair and objective fact-finder.”

Key words -“was supposed to be”.

“Having seen all the evidence, and having made CREDIBILITY calls, the Judge ruled on the facts. Nothing in the judge’s story is far-fetched. In the judge’s story, a beloved Jew did an understandable, yet illegal act, and now must face the consequences.”

Yes, I understand this. But the question remains -where did this Judge get her evidence from? The only evidence presented in Court was a scenario of self-defense. She can’t just make up a different scenario for whatever reason. This is called a miscarriage of justice.

“Caring for someone does NOT mean that you believe they can never do something illegal. Does it?”

How do you know this person did something illegal? The evidence points to self-defense in spite of the Judge’s opinion. She obviously ruled the way she did because she believes in PC and not necessairly -“the truth and nothing but the truth”.