Steward Butler Catches a Break
- Thread starter Y.A.G Si Ye Nots
- Start date
If he sues he is a bigger idiot than I thought. There is no libel case here.
I think the Supreme Court got it right. While I think sexual orientation should be included in the hate crime category, I believe it is the legislature's job to make that happen and not the WVSC (which I don't see happening anytime soon).
There is a good argument, which basically was the prosecutor's case, that it was because a man was kissing a man and thus falls under the sex category. I think the issue is that the attack was based on the fact they were engaging in a homosexual act (sexual orientation) and not simply because they were men (sex). With that said, if we are going to have hate crimes we need to include sexual orientation. This thread alone is full of "fairy" and "queer" remarks evidencing bigoted behaviors gay people have to endure on a regular basis.
There is a good argument, which basically was the prosecutor's case, that it was because a man was kissing a man and thus falls under the sex category. I think the issue is that the attack was based on the fact they were engaging in a homosexual act (sexual orientation) and not simply because they were men (sex). With that said, if we are going to have hate crimes we need to include sexual orientation. This thread alone is full of "fairy" and "queer" remarks evidencing bigoted behaviors gay people have to endure on a regular basis.
Most people are bigoted in some way except the snowflakes and they are liars. They are bigoted towards anyone who disagrees with them. Not calling you a snowflake rifle. Snowflakes to me are young people living in a fantasy world who claim they love everybody and are atheists.
I choose not to **** dudes in the Ass or surround myself or support the Gay Community or Agendas. I don't have a hate for them, just don't care for them.
But so I guess in your eyes, Gays are a class of people separate from the norm?
Nobody is saying he didn't do anything wrong.
My point is this, if this was a regular fight, it wouldn't have gotten the notoriety it got if the words "Gay" and "Hate" wasn't involved.
Also I don't think you should be protected because you choose to kiss dudes.
What the fvck are you talking about? How do you even come close to reaching that conclusion. You are one stupid mother fvcker to have a brain that somehow twists things completely around.
There are groups of people in this country that face wide discrimination. In the past in this country, Catholics, blacks, Native Americans, women, etc. faced it. Today, many other groups face it including gays, blacks, Muslims, etc.
As a result of morons like you who discriminate, these groups are turned down for employment, service, loans, etc. Therefore, laws are passed which "protect" them from being discriminated against in certain situations. Yes, gays should be one of those classes, as evidenced by the morons in this thread who have spoken out against them.
Are they separate? No. They are so much a part of everything and everybody else that they should be included in the same rights everyone has and not be allowed to be discriminated against.
And if it were Chase Litton (or any white player) instead of Butler, and that player was shouting racial slurs at a black guy before beating him, it would have received just as much notoriety. Why? Because it is a hate crime.
Clearly your missing this......You don't choose to be a Race, Gender, Sex, Nationality, Disability, or Class.
But you choose to be Gay or not? That in my eyes, shouldn't be protected. That to me is a lifestyle.
But you choose to be Gay or not? That in my eyes, shouldn't be protected. That to me is a lifestyle.
Honestly Being Gay or following a certain Religion in America shouldnt be Protected by Law.
When your choosing to live a certain lifestyle, you shouldn't be protected.
When your choosing to live a certain lifestyle, you shouldn't be protected.
I'll add this, If a Gay guy saw a straight couple kissing and attacked them, would you consider it a Hate Crime??
It was all a bunch of politically correct nonsense. Was Butler an idiot for doing what he did? Yes. Did Marshall bail on him because of the PR issue. Yes. Did the prosecutor go overboard? Yes. Marshall cut ties with him because of the PR nightmare that really should not have been a nightmare based on WV law.
Everybody discriminates and everybody's biased. That's why I don't buy wishy washy fence sitters. They know what they think. Just too afraid to tell it.
First, you just made four posts in a row with nobody else posting, including three posts in a row within five minutes. You've done this before. Is your brain so simple that you can't get all of your thoughts together at once, so you have to keep posting a new thought every few minutes?
For your question . . . you are failing to see a big part of the Butler incident. Butler wasn't hit with the violation of civil rights because he is straight and the victim is gay. He was hit with it because he proved that he was attacking the guy(s) due to them being gay. He made multiple homophobic slurs and comments about them being gay, then went and attacked them because they were gay.
A gay guy attacking a straight couple shows no malice based on their sexuality.
That's bullshit. Change the situation to a white guy attacking a black guy after using racial slurs against him and telling him he didn't like him because of his color. Would Marshall bailing on the player make that simply due to a PR move? Hell no. Marshall would bail on a piece of shit like that just like they did with Butler.
Damn, you're getting dumber in your age.
The prosecutor didn't go overboard. When an issue goes to the state supreme court, it is a pretty hotly debated issue. The fact that the court ruled 3-2 shows that the opinion is split quite a bit. In knowing that, the prosecutor believing it is correct to pursue that charge isn't overboard. Overboard is taking something that is clearly extreme without reason. Having it go to the state supreme court where it was once again a close decision shows that the prosecutor's decision had some sound reasoning behind it.
First, the law of WV does not list gender. That is an entirely different word than "sex".
The Court in the majority decision refutes her, and your, argument on page 6 of the decision. And how can you assume Butler would not attack two lesbians? Just because you and I would rather watch or even join in than beat the shit out of them does not mean Butler feels the same.
Justice Workman (whom I respect and voted for in 2008) is almost silly to accuse the majority of a lack of critical thinking because the case does not require critical thinking. As the majority cited, twenty six times there has been an attempt in the WV Legislature to add sexual orientation to the protected classes, and twenty six times these efforts have failed. It's obvious on its face: the WV Legislature does NOT want gays to be a protected class, and does NOT want the attackers of gays to be prosecuted for hate crimes. They are a majority of bigots, panderers to the Religious Right, and good ol' boys. Their intent in the law is perfectly clear.
Fvck me in the ass and call me Sally! A well thought-out and logical argument. This board has made me so proud. This was almost good enough to balance out the illogical and irrelevant bullshit that Sam spewed out earlier in this thread.
It wasn't my argument. I said it was a strong argument from her, and I noted one glaring hole in it. That hole was exactly what you noted: the 26 times in recent history that adding sexual orientation to the statute has failed.
What does page 6 of the decision read?
"The State briefly argues that even if sexual orientation is not covered under West Virginia Code § 61-6-21(b), it should still be allowed to prosecute on Counts I and III on the basis that the crimes would not have occurred if one of the victims had been female, i.e., the State contends that the defendant did commit the crimes because of the victims’ sex. Although it is unclear from the appendix record whether the State presented this argument below, we find it to be unavailing as it alters not only the sex of one of the victims–from male to female–but it also requires the hypothetical female to be heterosexual. In other words, the argument invokes both the sex and sexual orientation of the alleged victim. To the extent this argument is tied to the State’s reliance upon the “because of sex” analyses employed under remedial discrimination statutes such as Title VII, such analysis is inapplicable. See infra note 11"
http://www.courtswv.gov/supreme-court/docs/spring2017/16-0543.pdf
Here is the link to the dissenting opinion, as well.
http://www.courtswv.gov/supreme-court/docs/spring2017/16-0543d-workman.pdf
Stew Butler had prior felonies before he came to MU, so even if he could sue Marshall for dismissing him (he can't) it would be tough to say it damaged his reputation.
Duke, on a side note about judges - if someone builds a ridiculously expensive home in central WV & expects to sell it for $17 million, their judgement should be questioned along with their sanity.
Yup. If Butler attacked them because of bigotry then we at least know his motivation. If he's not a bigot & is just going around randomly attacking people, that's even more frightening.
They didn't bail on him when they knew his baggage during the recruiting process.
So he was given multiple opportunities to develop his integrity and character. He failed. Marshall didn't fail him.
Haha, you have a link to that? *Never mind, I found it. It's nice, the blue bahia granite is a great touch, but it has a view of Kanawha City lol. Oh look honey, we can see McDonald's, said no one ever.
Build what you want and like, but don't expect to sell it.
Last edited:
He should actually sue the media, especially ESPN, as they are one of the organizations that jumped on the hate crime train when the news of the incident went public, and that in-turn along with the facts of what Butler did, lead to the decision to dismiss him from the program. Oh, if only Swag Roberts had kept driving when Butler told him to stop the car after the two gay individuals had flipped him off and cussed him for calling them a derogatory name. Its just a sad situation.
Its not that, Herdman just wants Doc and Hamrick fired for last season. He has hated them for years.
Butler was crucified by the national media before anyone at MU condemned his action publicly because they were using the stance that they wanted to have all the facts before making a decision. He did indeed commit a hate crime in the nations eyes regardless of whether the WV laws consider it one or not. He ruined his own life.
There's no doubt his crime was one of hate towards the lifestyle of the two people he attacked. I still cannot believe people like yourself continue to defend his actions, all because he dressed up in a Herd uniform. He's no different that the white piece of trash who beat up an old woman in the Meijer parking lot a few days back, just to steal her purse. A thug is a thug.
What felonies? I doubt Arizona St would have taken him if he had felony convictions. He was committed to them when he flipped to MU because he was going to be a NQ and ASU wouldn't be able to take him.
While this is a criminal case, the problem will any law attempting to define a sexual proclivity as the same thing as a visible minority are too huge to overcome.
Understand that employers are automatically guilty in so-called civil rights cases. If you are a job creator and you fire a white male, he is fired. If you fire a viaible minorty, an unelected board will reexamine the while matter and INFER, without any actual evidence, a "discrimatory animation". It is one reason the USA is not competitive in job creation, but it is what it is, and is not going to change any time soon.
Now let us expand this to a sexual proclivity. ONE particular set of sexual proclivities among the legion.
First, the ONLY defense a job creator has is numerical. And, with a few things around the edge that are not worth arguing about, you can find the numbers for blacks, women, Presbyterians, wheel-chair bound, whatever. OK. How many homosexuals are there? Some homosexual advocates say 10%. Scientists say less than 1%. So I guess we have to register all the homosexuals. Maybe make them wear a pink triange. That works out really well. Remember the last time socialists started dividing people into groups like that. Worked real well.
Second, who are these people? So we are not going to register homosexuals, right? If a job creator fires a Jew and does not know he is Jewish, is that actionable? And, just as importantly if a job creator fires a guy name Goldfarb because he thinks he is Jewish, but Goldfarb is a Catholic, is that actionable. So how, exactly do we cover homosexuals. Whoever they are and how many of them there might be. What if I don't like my neighbor, who is a never-married, flashy dressing, 35-year old, Miata driving, florist? But what if he is as straight as an arrow?
Third, the supposed reason for special priviliges for visible minorities is to remediate past generations of wrongs. 100% of homosexuals are the product of hetrosexual sex. Not the same thing as being born into a black family whose ancestors were denied an even shot, now is it?
Fourth, why this particular set of sexual proclivites. If a job creator fires some girl because she sleeps around, dresses trashy, wears too much makeup, works a side job as a stripper, does her boyfriend in the janitor's closet every lunch hour, whatever, why should she not get the same protections for her proclivity? If a guy gets in an ugly divorce and it comes out that he is having an affair and his boss does not promote him, why should he not get the same protections for his? What about bondage? What about ....? Why this one proclivity?
But lastly, most social scientists will state that homosexuals, unlike those given the special priviliges by such laws, are, as a group, wealthier than average. It is a remedy without a wrong.
SB got a measure of justice. Workman's illiterate dissent is easy to refute. If someone fills out a form and it says "sex" is there a single person who was not understand the question is about male or female. If the legislature meant something else, why did it reject the changes proposed by the far-lefts nearly 30 times, if they thought it already covered it? Illiterate. Typical of her work on most cases.
IMHO, the best thing to do is to treat everybody as a person and not grant special privilages to anyone for any reason. We will get there someday, but all of us will be long dead before we do. But, until then, let us help people, like actual minoriites that might actually need and deserve our help.
And keep our sex lives private. Whether you are a straight woman who has never "known" anyone but her one husband, a lothario and womanizer who sleeps with 200 women/year, a person who likes it rough, or a homosexual.
Now the troll can yell "dumb" and check spelling. It is what people with no points to make do.
Understand that employers are automatically guilty in so-called civil rights cases. If you are a job creator and you fire a white male, he is fired. If you fire a viaible minorty, an unelected board will reexamine the while matter and INFER, without any actual evidence, a "discrimatory animation". It is one reason the USA is not competitive in job creation, but it is what it is, and is not going to change any time soon.
Now let us expand this to a sexual proclivity. ONE particular set of sexual proclivities among the legion.
First, the ONLY defense a job creator has is numerical. And, with a few things around the edge that are not worth arguing about, you can find the numbers for blacks, women, Presbyterians, wheel-chair bound, whatever. OK. How many homosexuals are there? Some homosexual advocates say 10%. Scientists say less than 1%. So I guess we have to register all the homosexuals. Maybe make them wear a pink triange. That works out really well. Remember the last time socialists started dividing people into groups like that. Worked real well.
Second, who are these people? So we are not going to register homosexuals, right? If a job creator fires a Jew and does not know he is Jewish, is that actionable? And, just as importantly if a job creator fires a guy name Goldfarb because he thinks he is Jewish, but Goldfarb is a Catholic, is that actionable. So how, exactly do we cover homosexuals. Whoever they are and how many of them there might be. What if I don't like my neighbor, who is a never-married, flashy dressing, 35-year old, Miata driving, florist? But what if he is as straight as an arrow?
Third, the supposed reason for special priviliges for visible minorities is to remediate past generations of wrongs. 100% of homosexuals are the product of hetrosexual sex. Not the same thing as being born into a black family whose ancestors were denied an even shot, now is it?
Fourth, why this particular set of sexual proclivites. If a job creator fires some girl because she sleeps around, dresses trashy, wears too much makeup, works a side job as a stripper, does her boyfriend in the janitor's closet every lunch hour, whatever, why should she not get the same protections for her proclivity? If a guy gets in an ugly divorce and it comes out that he is having an affair and his boss does not promote him, why should he not get the same protections for his? What about bondage? What about ....? Why this one proclivity?
But lastly, most social scientists will state that homosexuals, unlike those given the special priviliges by such laws, are, as a group, wealthier than average. It is a remedy without a wrong.
SB got a measure of justice. Workman's illiterate dissent is easy to refute. If someone fills out a form and it says "sex" is there a single person who was not understand the question is about male or female. If the legislature meant something else, why did it reject the changes proposed by the far-lefts nearly 30 times, if they thought it already covered it? Illiterate. Typical of her work on most cases.
IMHO, the best thing to do is to treat everybody as a person and not grant special privilages to anyone for any reason. We will get there someday, but all of us will be long dead before we do. But, until then, let us help people, like actual minoriites that might actually need and deserve our help.
And keep our sex lives private. Whether you are a straight woman who has never "known" anyone but her one husband, a lothario and womanizer who sleeps with 200 women/year, a person who likes it rough, or a homosexual.
Now the troll can yell "dumb" and check spelling. It is what people with no points to make do.
*viable
*minority
*discriminatory
*triangle
Godwin's Law.
*privileges
*heterosexual
*proclivities
*privileges
*privileges (how in the **** did you spell it wrong two different ways?)
*minorities
In closing, both you and your post are dumb.
You're not defending him, but yet you clearly stated that he was being crucified by the national media, and should sue some in the national media. You considered it to be a hate crime. Why? I'm guessing because you either read about it, perhaps saw the video of the incident, or heard about it from another person. You gained your consideration from those facts, just as the national media did, the same national media you feel crucified him.I'm not defending his action, I consider what he did to be a hate crime.
I stand semantically corrected, he was a juvenile at the time, so its expunged. The crime (drug trafficking) isn't specifically mentioned in it, but here's a link to an ESPN article from 2010 that made glancing note of it:
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/news/story?id=5536617
[As an aside, its sort of funny to read this "but he's alright now!" kind of stuff, seven years later. Makes you wonder what percentage of those feed-good recruiting articles have a shelf-life of five years or less.]
In other words, you have no point to make, so you checkspell, say people who have different opinions than you are "dumb", and post a meme.
Sad really.
