I told you a different time and I’ll tell you again I never went to YU. I’m not MO.
The controlling case here is Stuart v QD inc…Hardison (I’m giving you the befit of the doubt and assuming that’s what you meant) actually hurts your case. (I was vague on purpose here.)
I will concede to you that the accommodation doctrine is more extensive than I initially thought constitutional. And that my previous statement of the law is misleading.
The concept of burden of proof is crucial. If you don’t get it, what does that say about Touro?
No one has ever questioned WHETHER there was an assault, rather if the assault was justified. (There was a kid that went to the hospital you know)
In such a case, the assumption (as it should be) is that assaults are illegal UNLESS you can PROVE otherwise. Is my English simple enough?
Nothing here is black and white, and I wouldn’t be surprised
There’s (at least) one question you didn’t answer me: How do you KNOW that NOTHING could have given the judge the conclusion she reached other than political pressure etc.?