SeaWorld has asked the court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by PETA that names five orcas as plaintiffs in the case.Um.....yeah.........
PETA claims the captured killer whales are treated like slaves for being forced to live in tanks and perform daily at its parks in San Diego and Orlando, Florida.
"This case is on the next frontier of civil rights," said PETA's attorney Jeffrey Kerr, representing the five orcas.
"With all due respect, the court does not have the authority to even consider this question," Shaw said, adding later: "Neither orcas nor any other animal were included in the 'We the people' ... when the Constitution was adopted."BAHAHA!!!.....Excuse me......cough....... He does have a point.
The court listened to both sides for an hour before announcing that he would take the case under advisement and issue his ruling at a later date. The judge raised doubts a court can allow animals to be plaintiffs in a lawsuit, and he questioned how far the implications of a favorable ruling could reach, pointing out the military's use of dolphins and scientists' experiments on whales in the wild.
Kerr acknowledged PETA faces an uphill battle but he said he was hopeful after Monday's hearing.
The issue is not about whether the animals have been subjected to abuse, the defense said. If the court were to grant orcas constitutional rights, Shaw warned the ruling would have profound implications that could impact everything from the way the U.S. government uses dogs to sniff out bombs and drugs to how zoos and aquariums operate.
"We're talking about hell unleashed," he said.
PETA said a ruling in its favor would only help to protect the orcas in the entertainment industry and other cases involving animals would have to be decided on their own merits.
Brushing animals off as property is the same argument that was used against African-Americans and women before their constitutional rights were protected, PETA says.
Shaw pointed out that argument does not translate because both women and African-Americans are people for which the Constitution was written to protect.
Miller did not specify when he would issue his ruling.
It is not known whether the Orcas will testify on their behalf.
Oh, PETA.....really?
Kerr acknowledged PETA faces an uphill battle but he said he was hopeful after Monday's hearing.
The issue is not about whether the animals have been subjected to abuse, the defense said. If the court were to grant orcas constitutional rights, Shaw warned the ruling would have profound implications that could impact everything from the way the U.S. government uses dogs to sniff out bombs and drugs to how zoos and aquariums operate.
"We're talking about hell unleashed," he said.
PETA said a ruling in its favor would only help to protect the orcas in the entertainment industry and other cases involving animals would have to be decided on their own merits.
Brushing animals off as property is the same argument that was used against African-Americans and women before their constitutional rights were protected, PETA says.
Shaw pointed out that argument does not translate because both women and African-Americans are people for which the Constitution was written to protect.
Miller did not specify when he would issue his ruling.
It is not known whether the Orcas will testify on their behalf.
Oh, PETA.....really?
No comments:
Post a Comment