Joined
·
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.
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.
