Big Victory!

In the first such case ever to be heard in a Court of Law, a Judge dismissed a lawsuit Peta had brought seeking Constitutional protection under the Bill of Rights for Killer Whales at SeaWorld, claiming they were being held as slaves and forced into indentured servitude.

The Judge dismissed the case saying that these principals apply ONLY TO HUMANS

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/08/judge-tosses-out-case-seeking-slavery-protection-for-killer-whales/

If they claim they are indentured servants . . . What debt are they paying off?
The whales somehow owe something to their masters?
What a bunch of nut cases.
At least there's one sane judge left.

I saw that too. I'll be the very first to speak out against the MISTREATMENT (animal abuse) of ANY animal. I'm a hunter & an animal lover. The difference is that I love to eat them too.

A lot of the peta folks are extremists. I won't make a practice of posting religious material outside of "THE CROSS ROADS" sub forum, but this is pertinent to the topic.

http://www.godtellsus.com/abouteatinganimalsandwearingfur.html

Remember folks, these are the same nutbags that have the saying "a rat is a pig is a monkey is a boy." The same folk who also banned mountain lion hunting in California and now can't believe it when a dog or jogger or child is mauled or killed. It is this kind of mentality that clogs up or judicial system and puts useless laws on the books!

No doubt bout that. But the reason this particular case sets was so important was that it was the first time that they have actually tried to grant "rights" to non-human animals under Constitutional protections in a court of law.This begins to set precedent that
"rights" as we recognize them are applied only to humans.

I do not condone animal abuse either,and think animal abuse for the sake of abuse and tourture should be illegal,but do not think rights apply to animals.

It has always been my contention that "rights" are an entirely human concept that apply only to humans. To enjoy the benefit of rights, you have to understand these concepts, and be able to respect "rights" in regard to others. For instance, if you do not respect anothers rights, yours are reduced or removed by criminal penalty.There is a multitude of legal precedent to support this fact. Animals neither understand or are capable of respecting "rights" in regards to others.

For instance, would you jail one animal for killing another? While there does need to be law to protect animals from human negligence and abuse for abuses sake, to even suggest animals should enjoy the benefit of "rights" is ludicrous.

SlowBow wrote:For instance, would you jail one animal for killing another?

I would accept passing a law with a mandatory death penalty to coyotes for killing deer.

Like everyone's already stated, I think all animals should be treated with respect.
But, to propose that animals shouldn't be kept as pets because that's akin to slavery is just silly.
Some owners DO treat their pets as slaves, and I agree that's not right.