Motorcycle Forums banner
1 - 1 of 10 Posts

· The Toad
17,448 Posts
"He ruled that the law does not violate one’s freedom of religion because the added costs due to potential head injuries would be an unnecessary strain on the public health system."

Wow. Now that's plain and simple illogic. The two have nothing to do with each other. One could say that the law doesn't discriminate because everyone has to wear one. But the above statement attributed to the judge is irrational. 'Potential' injuries place absolutely no strain on the health care system. Only actual injuries do. What a loonie.

An irrational collectivist judge.. well, Duh! That's a redundancy.
1 - 1 of 10 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.