Christian bakers, many of whom have no problem taking Gay people’s money on a regular basis, have been given an excuse to ignore anti-discrimination laws with impunity, something non-religious people cannot do, and refuse to bake those same people wedding cakes claiming that, as same sex marriage goes against some firmly held recently invented religious belief, making such a cake would imply their agreement with something their religion does not accept even though civil law allows for such marriages, and that is a strong enough reason to support and allow the discriminatory refusal.
Oddly, as many of these Christians concerned with guilt by association are strong Second Amendment advocates and some own gun shops, shooting ranges, and arsenals of weaponry in order to, as they claim, protect their families from home invasions even if this involves prowling for and shooting anyone who could potentially be a possible home invader miles from home, one would think that just as a wedding cake links the baker to acceptance of and, therefore, aiding and abetting in a forbidden union, gun manufacturers and those who sell their products should also be held as aiders and abettors in any crime committed with a gun.
There are religious proscriptions against robbery and murder that can be looked up.
Just as Christian bakers claim they can be held responsible for promoting same sex marriages by supplying the anti-Christ wedding cake and will then burn forever in the fires of hell, those who make and supply any weapon used in a crime, even ones of which they are not aware, should be as strongly held for their complicity because such a crime with a gun became possible only upon its acquisition.
For most people this might be a logical question, but, usually, it is just people expressing an opinion with no one actually acting on this to test it.
On December 14, 2012, twenty first-graders and six teachers were killed when a gunman entered the Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut and shot them.
Congress did nothing to prevent such tragedies in the future but after offering a lot of thoughts and prayers promised in all forms of expression, written, verbal, artistic, Congress and the people of the United States were happy they had done their part for the children, the teachers, and those affected by their murders.
Nine families took real action and filed a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer, Remington Arms, for “recklessly marketing a military-grade gun to civilians”.
Remington, as its defense, claims that it manufactured a legal firearm and the gunman, not the manufacturer, is responsible for the shooting.
The same that would be true if the Christian baker made a cake with an extremely short existence as its fate would be to be eaten in a large room by a lot of people who cared more about the cake than then identity of the baker. They baked the cake, how it was used and who ate it is out of their hands.
As part of its defense strategy, Remington is employing a practice we have seen used often in questionable deaths at the hands of law enforcement or when a Transgender person is murdered. The defense, apparently, hopes to establish that the victims were not all that innocent and, if examined, would be found to be somehow responsible for their fate and not the level of victim we all assume they were. They might have been harboring many evils cleverly hidden and sharing some degree of responsibility with the person who shot them.
To do this, Remington has subpoenaed school records belonging to the five children, whose family is suing, and the four teachers, whose families are also suing, who were killed that day. They want attendance records, report cards, and other documents related to them, such as the teachers’ district files.
As a teacher for 38 years in various locations throughout the country teaching kids on all socio-economic levels, I have had occasion to either come to the defense of a student or, sadly, have evidence that a student may have committed a crime during a given school day by having my attendance roster inspected. Some students were exonerated as they were not only listed as present on the day in question but had handed in an assignment done in class on that day.
A teacher’s attendance book, whether hard copy or on computer, is a sacred and legal document that, if tampered with, could cost the person a job and professional certification.
Even mistakes can cost jobs, and, sadly, tampering is not that rare a tactic used by administrators to remove a teacher whose removal cannot be justified beyond personal or political animus and, so, calls for some fabrication.
When consulted, all that is actually needed is to establish if a student had been in school for all or any part of a given day. Their grade on any assignment, their attendance on other days, the number of times they were sent to the office for discipline, or whether they were an exemplary student or a potential juvenile delinquent, was not necessary as none of it was relevant to the issue at hand.
Was the student present?
Being in class doing an assignment on a particular day is evidence of location not easily dismissed. The student’s getting a bad grade on the assignment or having been a bit of a jerk in the cafeteria at lunch on that or any day has nothing to do with proof of attendance on a particular day.
If the attendance record shows the student or teacher was present that day, the defense cannot be that the person was killed elsewhere, and the body dragged to the school for affect and inclusion.
How the student behaved before the event does not negate its happening nor the children’s and teachers’ deaths.
But, somehow, Remington feels they can either lessen their responsibility by painting second graders as bad enough people to have earned their fate, and the teachers as not good at their jobs and so should had to die as well.
None of this can possibly excuse Remington’s marketing conduct.
The secondary purpose of using such records is to counter any damage claims as, again, the worthiness of the victim to merit a level of compensation will depend on all other aspects of their lives at school.
Perhaps good grades and a good conduct record will mean more money for the victim’s family and less if things are the opposite. Perhaps someone fluent in English will be deemed higher on some scale than a kid just learning the language.
The case was to be heard in 2021 after the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled to let the case proceed but will now take place in 2022.
Congress passed a law in 2005 that protects firearm manufacturers from being held liable for crimes committed by gun purchasers after the purchase. How, after all, would the gun supplier know how the owner intends to use it?
The added feature of this case, however, is what the company may not be able to get around.
Remington arms did not just manufacture the weapons leaving their use up to the individual user, but the company marketed its military-style rifles for use in assaults against human beings and, thereby, “recklessly marketed a military-grade gun to civilians”.
They suggested a use, and must the held responsible for what they suggested.
That adds something.
.
.
.
.
.
