"Florida" tag beats "Follow Up" tag.

 
"Why, that's not just a farmhand, son..."

Poor Fricky.

Why I'd not last long at writing headlines...

Yankee diddled Doodle dandy!

Guess he wasn't man enough for a full-size donkey.

He's an asswipe-and damn proud of it.

Miniature donkey pick up lines...
 
"Can I give you a lift?."
 
"I'm hung, like a tiny donkey."
 
"I want you to bear my teeny centaurs."
 
"We're a match made in heaven.  You're name is Doodle, and I'm a dude who'll do ANYTHING!"

So, he's single?

Came for Clerks 2 references. Leaving disappointed this time.

\is the dude's name Kelly?

Well, if you cross a zebra with a donkey, you get a zonkey. The farmhand was probably just trying to create a honkey.

This is bad news... for Obama.

I defy any of you to resist this cute face!

Why oh why did this thread have to happen while I was away from my office computer?!

I'd show you a few pictures of little asses!!

Here is a picture of the victim:

"Romero was taken into custody at the Ocala farm where he was employed after reportedly admitting to police that he becomes aroused when seeing animals in heat and mating."

In fact--he's thinking about it RIGHT NOW

The motion argues that the law encroaches on Romero's due process rights, according to the Ocala Star-Banner.
The paper reported that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which was the basis for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, has been violated in Romero's case.

If this actually works, it's going to be a free-for-all in Florida. I'm pretty sure he's trying to claim a violation of the bolded part below without actually reading the rest of the amendment (underlined):

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unless they're going to argue that the donkey falls within jurisdiction of equal protection of the laws and wasn't granted it with the bestiality laws, which just sounds insane.

Actually, the linked article in the Daily Fail explains the whole thing in great detail. I was off the mark completely.

He'll have plenty of time to mule it over

Snarfangel: Here is a picture of the victim:
[www.mrouse.com image 634x591]


Cock a Doodle DON'T.

Lsherm: The motion argues that the law encroaches on Romero's due process rights, according to the Ocala Star-Banner.
The paper reported that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which was the basis for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, has been violated in Romero's case.

If this actually works, it's going to be a free-for-all in Florida. I'm pretty sure he's trying to claim a violation of the bolded part below without actually reading the rest of the amendment (underlined):

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unless they're going to argue that the donkey falls within jurisdiction of equal protection of the laws and wasn't granted it with the bestiality laws, which just sounds insane.

Actually, the linked article in the Daily Fail explains the whole thing in great detail. I was off the mark completely.

He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

PhiloeBedoe: [i1079.photobucket.com image 480x360] 
"Why, that's not just a farmhand, son..."

+1

So that's how they make Guy's Donkey Sauce...

APPROVES.

BravadoGT: Lsherm: The motion argues that the law encroaches on Romero's due process rights, according to the Ocala Star-Banner.
The paper reported that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which was the basis for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, has been violated in Romero's case.

If this actually works, it's going to be a free-for-all in Florida. I'm pretty sure he's trying to claim a violation of the bolded part below without actually reading the rest of the amendment (underlined):

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unless they're going to argue that the donkey falls within jurisdiction of equal protection of the laws and wasn't granted it with the bestiality laws, which just sounds insane.

Actually, the linked article in the Daily Fail explains the whole thing in great detail. I was off the mark completely.

He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

You've realized you've just proved the anti gay marriage people right about the slippery slope.

BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

"Rational basis" is the lowest level of review. The government need only hypothesize a reasonable connection to a legitimate interest. The rational basis doesn't even have to be the government's real reason for outlawing an activity.

Bestiality can be cruel to the animal. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals. Therefor bestiality laws have a rational basis even if the real reason for them is "ewwww."

Equal protection is subject to intermediate scrutiny. A court considers whether the statute involves important governmental interests and whether the law is substantially related to the achievement of important government objectives.

Preventing animal cruelty is an important government interest, particularly when it involves sexual gratification because serial killers, arsonists, child and spouse abusers, etc., often start that way. Statutes forbidding bestiality are substantially related to this important government objective.

BarkingUnicorn: Preventing animal cruelty is an important government interest, particularly when it involves sexual gratification because serial killers, arsonists, child and spouse abusers, etc., often start that way.

I think you're conflating two different issues. Animal abuse and sexual gratification from violence towards animals aren't the same thing.

But it doesn't matter, because psychologists can't agree on abnormal behavior, anyway. This case won't go anywhere, but in 20 years someone is going to make progress.

It wasn't HIS donkey, or else it would be okay. Or, if he did it in another area code, jackass.

BarkingUnicorn: Bestiality can be cruel to the animal. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals. Therefor bestiality laws have a rational basis even if the real reason for them is "ewwww."

While animal cruelty is OK if the real reason for it is "mmmmm".

/obligatory

PhiloeBedoe: [i1079.photobucket.com image 480x360] 
"Why, that's not just a farmhand, son..."

Tell me Hitler at least took that donkey to a Leafs game first.

(The sketches for that show must've started as a game of Mad Libs.)

I thought we were supposed to pretend that this is ok because he was born this way, and all of that crap.

I_Am_Weasel: Why I'd not last long at writing headlines...

Yankee diddled Doodle dandy!

Was going to attempt a paragraph contaning the phrase 'yank a Doodle donkey', but yours is better.

Snarfangel: Well, if you cross a zebra with a donkey, you get a zonkey. The farmhand was probably just trying to create a honkey.

Lol...

Poor Doodle took a guy's noodle up his kaboodle...

Satanus Maximus: Poor Doodle took a guy's noodle up his kaboodle...




Still a better love story than Twilight.

And Abbey will be the rest of his life.

BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

Animals lack the intellectual capacity to give consent.

BarkingUnicorn: BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

"Rational basis" is the lowest level of review. The government need only hypothesize a reasonable connection to a legitimate interest. The rational basis doesn't even have to be the government's real reason for outlawing an activity.

Bestiality can be cruel to the animal. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals. Therefor bestiality laws have a rational basis even if the real reason for them is "ewwww."

Equal protection is subject to intermediate scrutiny. A court considers whether the statute involves important governmental interests and whether the law is substantially related to the achievement of important government objectives.

Preventing animal cruelty is an important government interest, particularly when it involves sexual gratification because serial killers, arsonists, child and spouse abusers, etc., often start that way. Statutes forbidding bestiality are substantially related to this important government objective.

Bestiality is not cruel to any animal sheep-size and up. Sorry, but as long as we're not talking chickens, the reason is 'eeewww' and 'eeewww' only.

BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

No. One good reason for outlawing bestiality is because the animal cannot give consent and while a human penis in a donkey may not hurt the animal much do you simply write the law based on animal weight?

Well, you can fark your donkey or your cow, but we're going to have to weigh that sheep before we decide if what you did to it was legal or not.

How about this. No, you can't fark animals. It is disgusting and offensive, but more than that it is animal cruelty. Why don't you just go jack off in private?

He wanted to wish the donkey Buon Natale in a very special way.

Gordon Bennett: Animals lack the intellectual capacity to give consent.

Duck rape is worst rape.

HOTY candidate?

BarkingUnicorn: BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

"Rational basis" is the lowest level of review. The government need only hypothesize a reasonable connection to a legitimate interest. The rational basis doesn't even have to be the government's real reason for outlawing an activity.

Bestiality can be cruel to the animal. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals. Therefor bestiality laws have a rational basis even if the real reason for them is "ewwww."

Equal protection is subject to intermediate scrutiny. A court considers whether the statute involves important governmental interests and whether the law is substantially related to the achievement of important government objectives.

Preventing animal cruelty is an important government interest, particularly when it involves sexual gratification because serial killers, arsonists, child and spouse abusers, etc., often start that way. Statutes forbidding bestiality are substantially related to this important government objective.

I'm pretty sure you're trolling...

Ethically, it poses an interesting question. Bestiality or zoophilia can be viewed as unethical because non-human animals lack the capacity for informed consent. However, if animals are to be treated as incapable of consent in the same way minor humans are, normal livestock breeding and any human induced animal-animal breeding could also be seen as a form of rape because of lack of consent (as it is illegal and unethical to induce minors to engage in sex with eachother). I think the most logical view is to prosecute it as a form of animal abuse, although in some cases it might be difficult to prove criminal harm if the animal seemed unaffected.

Gordon Bennett: BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

Animals lack the intellectual capacity to give consent.

So do intoxicated women, but that still tends to be a legal argument (IIRC) on a state by state basis

Daily Mail?

Save your time reading the article. Generate your own headine and make a story up in your head based on the output. The net result of ingesting something relevant will be about the same.

I'm afraid to go back and look upthread, is there actually somebody in here saying that farking a donkey should be legal?

Just, no. A whole lot of reasons, just no. No.

He should have gone to Columbia.

Looks like the bronies are skipping the real doll version step.

Disgusting.

ah well. If anyone needs me I'll be in the lab

Happy Hours: BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

No. One good reason for outlawing bestiality is because the animal cannot give consent and while a human penis in a donkey may not hurt the animal much do you simply write the law based on animal weight?

Well, you can fark your donkey or your cow, but we're going to have to weigh that sheep before we decide if what you did to it was legal or not.

How about this. No, you can't fark animals. It is disgusting and offensive, but more than that it is animal cruelty. Why don't you just go jack off in private?

You write the law on slaughter of an animal based on its weight. I don't see what's so different.