Quote:
Originally Posted by Byrdie714
She violated the law. She violated the law by dying her animal when she was warned not too. Can't you comprehend that? Apparently not. This has nothing to do with her civil rights. She is excercising her civil rights by contesting the said citation in court. Secondly, when one has an animal in their possesion, one has to follow the laws in terms of licensing the animal, not coloring the animal, etc., pertaining to one's jurisdiction.
If you are not going to be a law abiding citizen, you will have consequences to face.
Simple as that.
She is choosing the hard way and making it difficult on herself. Secondly, she is manipulating the media to her cause as she knowingly violated the law by advocating for funding for breast cancer research in dying her dog pink.
Which by the way is tacky.
There are other ways to raise funds for breast cancer research without going to the extreme of dying a dog pink.
|
And she is quaranteed the right of her day in court to fight the citation. What part of that do you not understand, "barrsiter"?
She didn't manipulate the media, the media sought her out.
Perhaps you consider dying her dog pink to raise awareness for breast cancer "tacky", but your opinion on the tackiness of the act is not an issue. Nor has she been cited for being "tacky". So that is neither here nor there.
I might ask you, what are you doing to raise awareness on any level regarding any issue that affects any gender?
Your personal judgenments regarding the appropriateness of her actions are not an issue here. You are entitled to disagree with her. However, that does not mitigate the fact that she is indeed, entitled to her day in court to fight the application of a law of which the intent had nothing to do with this particular situation.