Murder requires some kind of intent to do harm. You could argue a drunk driver is "likely" to know their actions will result in death and therefore they are reckless, but it is not likely enough. That's why it isn't murder, not because people don't take it seriously enough.

@whipassmt: The lower court seemed to think so, saying it violated Equal protection (art. 14 of their constitution) and their substantive due process (art 21). I think maybe their privacy clause too but I am not 100% on that. The Supreme Court of India then decided in the opinion that they would defer completely to the discretion of parliament and no one had presented evidence the law is discriminatory. The problem though is it clearly is, the way it's written it is de-facto discrimination as they only target one group with the law.

@whipassmt: the problem is the Supreme Court in India is know for judicial activism. The reason they upheld the "constitutionality" of the statute is because plaintiffs failed to show why it's discriminatory. When they should not have to as the law is discriminatory on its face.

I wasn't saying I agree just what the judge probably thought. Anyway it's better he's off the streets, he wasn't released to his parents and will be in some swanky rehab facility for 10 years, but that is the part that really offends me. He should have gone to wherever they usually send people, not just the place people can afford.

@Fightingfan:

But the problem would be public sex. Not public gay sex, so yes you would have to ban it for all instead of discriminating...

And it goes against their constitution. PartIII sec. 14, "Equality before law — The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India."

Does that mean the Civil Justice system is run by...uh...civils?

Anyway, he has probation with mandatory therapy for 10 years. Ideally (especially the juvenile system) punishments are meant to rehabilitate. If this kid messes up even once he gets thrown in jail. It seems it was the judge trying to keep him under the law longer because a juvenile prison sentence would have been shorter and couldn't come with the same restraints as his probation.

While I think the police lacked probable cause for arrest and will be with a 1983 suit or some state civil acts suit, I think the reason for the solitary and the delay of the trial was due to the suicide attempts. Pretty standard to throw suicidal people in solitary, we also don't have enough facts about the trial delays (maybe there was a competency issue).

In terms of whom gets sued, prosecutors have immunity for the most part and judges always have immunity. The police will be on the hook for violating the 4th amendment though (unreasonable seizure).

Everyone does know the Constitution says nothing about "freedom of association" right? It comes from Supreme Court cases mainly discussing membership to groups and birth control cases. And there is nothing that gives business owners the right to refuse service to anyone, the closest thing is you can prevent association with parties that would undermine the message or business model of the company.

[QUOTE="WTFr0b0ts"]

 

I agree it was a case of free market/social justice, minus the morons straight up harassing them. The boycotting and even contacting the vendors is what is going to happen, it's the risk people run if they choose their own personal beliefs over good business.

 

I only brought up the legal stuff because of all the people talking about discrimination law.

MrGeezer

Very true. Then even could have held their views and maintained business had they just given any reason why they couldn't make the cake. But you're right, at the end of the day they didn't know the consumer and paid for it.

[QUOTE="WTFr0b0ts"]In a nutshell, what they didn't probably isn't illegal, but they should have expected (and most likely deserved) to lose business.

 

 

 

MrGeezer

I agree it was a case of free market/social justice, minus the morons straight up harassing them. The boycotting and even contacting the vendors is what is going to happen, it's the risk people run if they choose their own personal beliefs over good business.

I only brought up the legal stuff because of all the people talking about discrimination law.