Implied BJ on Jesus, atheists support teen.

[Esquilax]

Negative Esquilax.

I am not surrendering. I take the position the local governance is the best governance. Its not the topic of this thread so I won't go into why I take that position except to say that positions like yours are elitist. Read what you wrote...you are taking the position that YOU an outsider know what is better for a particular community then the people of the community.

Elitist, really? My position, that people can be wrong about things, and that we should live in an egalitarian society where the emotional feelings of a community don't trample over the rights of the minority is elitist? Truly spoken like someone safely nestled within the bosom of the majority.

I know it might be hard for you to imagine, but for someone in a minority group that a lot of people would actually very much like to silence and denigrate and segregate, those federal laws that prevent communities from just running roughshod over everything they disapprove of are actually very valuable. Not just valuable, I'd argue that they're essential; we supposedly live in an equal, free society, but you're arguing for literally the opposite of that, where everyone's rights are conditional based on whether a lot of people agree with them or not. I only hope someday you end up as a hated minority, so you can see how truly frightening such a prospect is.

Not that your "oh, you're elitist because you think you know better than the community!" crap actually pans out anyway, because this isn't about the community. The community isn't the one prosecuting him, and you don't even have any measure of public support behind this action, so all this "what the community wants," nonsense is merely a convenient smokescreen to hide behind. All you can really say is that certain elements of the local police force, no doubt christian themselves, support the notion. I wonder, are they elitist for thinking they know better than the community? Or is that just for people you disagree with?

I've already argued why I think prosecuting this kid does not violate the constitution. I won't answer your question about segregation laws because it has nothing to do with the topic. Having lost this argument, It is merely an attempt on your part to change the argument to another topic that you think you may have a chance at winning.

No, I'm trying to expose the blatant special pleading in your argument by demonstrating that your drive for the community to pick and choose whatever laws it wants is not consistent. Which, I believe, is why you refuse to answer the question, because it puts you in an awkward spot, as I fully intended: either you answer that you would be in favor of segregation laws if they were in the majority (uh oh!) or you answer that you would not be, and expose the insincerity of your stated position.

Which your silence does also, by the way.

What if it was a statue of Rosa Parks and the community was Ferguson? Would it be okay for that community to get offended if this white kid simulated a sex act with a statue of Rosa Parks in Ferguson?

The sad truth is that if it were a statue of Rosa Parks there would probably be no arrest at all. This isn't about the law, this is about christians getting all up in arms over their sacred icon.

And again, you seem to think that community offense and prosecution are somehow linked.