SeaWorld Sued by PETA for Enslaving Animals - The animal rights group PETA, which to its credit does a great deal of good work, recently introduced legal action against the theme park SeaWorld that could almost be described as laughable. In the lawsuit, the organization is stating the park keeps the animals as slaves and as such that is in violation of their rights under the 13th Amendment.
PETA can't possibly be serious. If anyone sits down and reads the Constitution, you can see there is nothing there involving animals. Perhaps PETA is upset at the alleged treatment of the animals that have to perform in many of SeaWorld's live shows. Perhaps it is looking at this as a way of raising awareness toward their organization. Either way you slice it, the lawsuit can be looked at as nothing more than a farce by any reasonable person.
Because there is nothing in the Constitution stating that only humans are included under the umbrella of the 13th Amendment, PETA may have the fringes of an arguable case. But I have to ask the questions. PETA has been in existence since 1980. Why is this the first time the group has argued for animal rights under the blanket of slavery? Where has the animal rights group been for 30 years? I haven't turned on the news recently and seen PETA suing for the rights of the tigers and lions that have to sit behind cages all day. Or saying the elephants in the circus are being treated unconstitutionally.
PETA is taking on a vulnerable target with this frivolous lawsuit. SeaWorld has been in the news the past couple of years with one of the Orca trainers being killed in an accident.
So while its intentions may be good in spirit, in action they are terribly misdirected. There's no way this lawsuit would hold up in front of any judge with sense. The 13th Amendment has been in place for over 150 years. Not once has there been a case of note protesting animal rights under the Constitution.
Perhaps the folks at PETA would be better served just holding up signs in front of the park. Not only would it be a less vengeful sounding way of grabbing attention, but it would waste less of the money people donate to them on a yearly basis. ( yahoo.com )
PETA can't possibly be serious. If anyone sits down and reads the Constitution, you can see there is nothing there involving animals. Perhaps PETA is upset at the alleged treatment of the animals that have to perform in many of SeaWorld's live shows. Perhaps it is looking at this as a way of raising awareness toward their organization. Either way you slice it, the lawsuit can be looked at as nothing more than a farce by any reasonable person.
Because there is nothing in the Constitution stating that only humans are included under the umbrella of the 13th Amendment, PETA may have the fringes of an arguable case. But I have to ask the questions. PETA has been in existence since 1980. Why is this the first time the group has argued for animal rights under the blanket of slavery? Where has the animal rights group been for 30 years? I haven't turned on the news recently and seen PETA suing for the rights of the tigers and lions that have to sit behind cages all day. Or saying the elephants in the circus are being treated unconstitutionally.
PETA is taking on a vulnerable target with this frivolous lawsuit. SeaWorld has been in the news the past couple of years with one of the Orca trainers being killed in an accident.
So while its intentions may be good in spirit, in action they are terribly misdirected. There's no way this lawsuit would hold up in front of any judge with sense. The 13th Amendment has been in place for over 150 years. Not once has there been a case of note protesting animal rights under the Constitution.
Perhaps the folks at PETA would be better served just holding up signs in front of the park. Not only would it be a less vengeful sounding way of grabbing attention, but it would waste less of the money people donate to them on a yearly basis. ( yahoo.com )
No comments :
Post a Comment