What to blog about? The requirement of the government to require companies to pay for insurance which is in direct conflict with their religious and moral beliefs, and how it conflicts with the separation of church and state? Planned Parenthood v. Susan G. Komen and change of their policy relating to funding of PP due to a social media backlash. Is that good or bad and doesn’t it really depend upon your perspective? Nope. Done that. Today I will address an issue which should be on the forefront of everyone in America. The slavery of killer whales. Yes. PETA has filed a lawsuit in California (is anyone surprised) claiming that SeaWorld is violating the 13th Amendment of the Constitution by having Killer Whales in their show. For those of you that have forgotten the 13th Amendment abolished slavery stating: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Ok so PETA wants it to apply to animals. I guess that preamble of: “We the people…” kind of slipped by them. So let’s follow this out. First if you are a PETA supporter aren’t you a little upset that some of your money is being used to fund this suit and what happens if PETA were to win? Wouldn’t you have to set free all your pets as they are being kept against their wishes? Wouldn’t the next step be that every animal would have to be set free and every animal killed would result in a murder charge? I am really at a loss to understand the logic here and why the Court did not dismiss it rather than take the arguments under advisement. All that did is give PETA (People Eliciting Tortious Acts) as opposed to PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) some crazy idea that this has merit. So we now have a situation where a group is claiming that the killer whales are slaves and have rights and there is no social media outcry? Where are all the Planned Parenthood people? Why hasn’t PETA provided funding for PP and not wasted it on crazy cases like this? Is it because the mission statement of PETA and PP are not similar? That can’t be it because PP and Susan G. Komen mission statements are not similar. So where is the social media outcry? Where are the people claiming frivolous lawsuits? Where the heck did my country go? By the way My Party (see earlier post) is firmly against this misuse of the judicial system. What do you think?
PETA — Are you serious???
Feb 8, 2012 | Frivolous, health care, Insurance, obamacare, PETA, political parties, Susan G. Komen, Tort Reform
Not all animal rights activists are crazy, but this PETA action speaks for itself. There is animal law, and then there are animal “rights.”
I would not have filed the suit as Plaintiff’s counsel out of fear of the consequences from the bench. I wonder what they were paid in fees for that action?
I haven’t read the pleadings. Are the Orcas requesting reparations?
And, let’s say this suit had legs. Once you start slicing into the rights “pie” so to speak, where do you stop cutting? Consider extending all the rights we enjoy as human beings and as citizens of the United States of America to all animals? Or are some pigs more equal than others, and therefor enjoy greater rights and or protection than some other lesser animals? Under the law, of course.
I suspect my terrier will support “no dog left behind” and quit being obedient.
We live in an era where tort reform and millions of dollars in advertising has dinned into the heads of most voters the idea that most lawsuits are fomented by greedy plaintiff lawyers and are frivolous. Now PETA does this. Thanks.
On the other hand, we are typing about it…
Excellent, I am going home and freeing my dog and cat to let them be free once more!