Lively's Argument Against Homosexuality

Since intenational law trumps domestic ideas the courts would obviously decline a motion to dismiss under statutes of constitutional right. This is shown through the Kiobel case where liability lands in the scope of international law. I see the reason for Lively’s motion to dismiss, because of the American ideas of freedom of speech and religion. As a united State citizen, Lively has a basic right under first amendment due to engaging in not violent political speech anywhere in the world. The court describes that “The freedoms of speech, press, religion, and assembly, and the right not to be subject to an establishment of religion, are protected against infringement in the exercise of foreign relations power as in domestic affairs”(). In addition, Lively has a own religion, but …show more content…
Shokingly egregious violation include such as genocide, slavery, and murder. However, SMUG claimed sharing Livel’s “opinion” toward homosexual people, which is protected by the first amendament as a core political speech are evil. Thus, Lively’s political speech cannot apply to the “crime against humanity”. SMUG may againsy Lively’s opinions on homosexuality conduct, and SMUD recognized this opinion offensive. However, SMUG has no right to invole the jurisdiction against it because SMUG was offended by Lively’s advocacy and speech. It is not under the form of against humanity. So, I would rule in favor of Lively’s motion to dismiss. Thirdly, there is no way to endorses of any violence that may have been enacted against anyone. He has convicted because of the killing of David Kato and people have provoked others to imminent violence. Although he has disapproved, with strong words, people who push for the standardization of homosexual conduct, Lively has never provoked others to violence, and SMUG simply does not allege otherwise. As a result, this case is not persecution lively, who SMUG claim to have done just for