Gay Man Files $70M Suit Against Bible Publishers Over Homosexual Verses

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Its their right. The bible is just fairytale book according to the constitution.

 

[The Hammer]

Its their right. The bible is just fairytale book according to the constitution.

Last time I read the constitution of the US it makes no mention of the Bible, let alone calling it a fairy tale.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's hold you to that. If this gets dismissed you can with little cost, or if defendants are awarded attorney fees, then you let go of advocating for loser pays and start trumpeting how great our court system is.

Oh, you big silly!
Defendants are sometimes, albeit rarely, awarded legal costs when they prevail.
I'll not relinquish my crusade until it becomes the general case.

You may now form a mental image of me like this....

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Last time I read the constitution of the US it makes no mention of the Bible, let alone calling it a fairy tale.

By accepting gay rights, us constitution called bible indirectly fairytales of the old.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh, you big silly!
Defendants are sometimes, albeit rarely, awarded legal costs when they prevail.
I'll not relinquish my crusade until it becomes the general case.

That wouldn't be a good idea. It would discourage legit cases for fear of having to pay for the "winner's" legal fees. How many people would even dare to sue a large corporation, regardless the reason, when the risk of doing so is more money than they'll ever see?

By accepting gay rights, us constitution called bible indirectly fairytales of the old.

No, they didn't. They stated that religion, none of them, has no business dictating the laws of the land, and that those who do not believe should not be bound to them. There is insufficient reason to be opposed to gay marriage outside of religious objections, thus continuing to be opposed to it at the state level is not appropriate for a secular society.

 

[Shad]

By accepting gay rights, us constitution called bible indirectly fairytales of the old.

Nope, just that it is not the basis of laws since to hold other people to laws of a religion they do not follow is oppression.

 

[Revoltingest]

That wouldn't be a good idea. It would discourage legit cases for fear of having to pay for the "winner's" legal fees. How many people would even dare to sue a large corporation, regardless the reason, when the risk of doing so is more money than they'll ever see?

Losing suits are exactly the kind which shouldn't be brought.
Let's say that Wirey sues you for child support for Wirey Jr, claiming that you're the mom, & he's indigent.
You spend $50K proving that he's a dishonest & deluded jerk.
Should he not be held liable for your loss?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Losing suits are exactly the kind which shouldn't be brought.
Let's say that Wirey sues you for child support for Wirey Jr, claiming that you're the mom, & he's indigent.
You spend $50K proving that he's a dishonest & deluded jerk.
Should he not be held liable for your loss?

Not all lawsuits are like that. Malicious lawsuits, sure: let costs be recovered. But if the lawsuit is made in good faith with a reasonable expectation that it will win, I think that making the loser pay the winner's costs would stop people from bringing forward legitimate, winnable lawsuits.

Also, there aren't always clear winners and losers. If, in a tort case, the plaintiff is found 80% liable for his own injury and the defendant is found 20% liable, who "won"? The court found that the guy brought the injury on himself for the most part, but the defendant will still be paying him.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Losing suits are exactly the kind which shouldn't be brought.

That's why we have the courts in the first place. They are far from perfect, but we have them to let a disinterested party decide which cases are "winners" and "losers."

 

[Revoltingest]

Not all lawsuits are like that.

It was an extreme hypothetical to illustrate a point.
But a great many are equally lacking in merit.

Malicious lawsuits, sure: let costs be recovered.

I'll add frivolous suits.

But if the lawsuit is made in good faith with a reasonable expectation that it will win, I think that making the loser pay the winner's costs would stop people from bringing forward legitimate, winnable lawsuits.

Lawsuits are often made in good faith, but without due diligence or any attempt to resolve a conflict prior to suing.
But even if a suit has merit, if one loses then one has caused unjust harm to the prevailing party.
Is it just to be the luck of the draw...that someone may sue you, waste your money, & they have no liability to cover the damage they cause?

Also, there aren't always clear winners and losers. If, in a tort case, the plaintiff is found 80% liable for his own injury and the defendant is found 20% liable, who "won"? The court found that the guy brought the injury on himself for the most part, but the defendant will still be paying him.

There's room for apportioning costs between the plaintiff & defendant here.
And this would greatly lessen a plaintiff's risk in filing a suit with real merit.

I fully understand that a loser pay system will never happen here. Almost all of our politicians are lawyers, so they won't ever bite the hand that feeds them. Judges & other workers in the legal industrial complex (great name, eh) don't want to discourage suits, which are their bread & butter. Social justice warriors don't want to take away the little guy's ability to hassle the 1% free of charge & any liability. But spend some time in court, & you'll see that the majority of cases don't belong there. It's often someone who avoids negotiation, is just acting out of anger, doesn't understand the law, extorting a settlement, etc, etc. Lawyers are happy to take up bogus cases.

Parenthetical aside; an old addage.....
What makes a good lawyer?
The client's check cleared.

The legal system is all about letting no one be held accountable for their actions in court. Judges seldom look at the merit of the case before proceeding to trial. Cause someone else a big loss because of an irresponsible or intentional & vexatious suit? That's just a risk you take by having enuf money to be a target & afford a lawyer. I say it's not only unjust, it encourages a litigious society, which greatly damages our economy.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's why we have the courts in the first place. They are far from perfect, but we have them to let a disinterested party decide which cases are "winners" and "losers."

That much isn't in dispute.
But the courts are set up so that one party may cause a great loss to an innocent party merely by bringing suit.
Do you pay rent? Some of your rent is just to cover the cost of defending against "suers", ie, professional plaintiffs who make money by bringing bogus fair housing & other suits in order to extort money from the landlord. One doesn't need any evidence to file a suit & continue the process. It costs big money to defend oneself, & the suers know this. File a suit for $1,000,000.....force the defendant to face spending $100,000 or so....& then offer to drop the suit for a couple hundred or a couple thousand dollars. I've been there & done that. These days, I spend about $20,000/year & a fair amount of time fighting bogus suits....oddly, not business related these days.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That much isn't in dispute.
But the courts are set up so that one party may cause a great loss to an innocent party merely by bringing suit.
Do you pay rent? Some of your rent is just to cover the cost of defending against "suers", ie, professional plaintiffs who make money by bringing bogus fair housing & other suits in order to extort money from the landlord. One doesn't need any evidence to file a suit & continue the process. It costs big money to defend oneself, & the suers know this. File a suit for $1,000,000.....force the defendant to face spending $100,000 or so....& then offer to drop the suit for a couple hundred or a couple thousand dollars. I've been there & done that. These days, I spend about $20,000/year & a fair amount of time fighting bogus suits....oddly, not business related these days.

My reply then is to change the system, but not in a way that forces the losers to pay the expenses of the winner. Doing so has the very real risk of discouraging legit cases that are not likely to be won, but should still be brought up any ways. It would also be a way for corporations to flaunt their control over the system, because people would be even less likely to bring a case against them because they know they probably won't win.

 

[dust1n]

The case in the OP reminded me of that case. Maybe the OP case was a response to that one, given the similarities. Maybe there is just a new trend of people being stupid and handwriting suits and trying to represent themselves?

Pros and cons of right to sue. It can be less problematic with sufficient frivolous litigation at the law. But, at the end of the day, anyone could sue you for any claimed reason, no matter how absurd, and you'd have to respond to the lawsuit in court, which is both costly to hire a lawyer, and time-consuming.

 

[dust1n]

That much isn't in dispute.
But the courts are set up so that one party may cause a great loss to an innocent party merely by bringing suit.
Do you pay rent? Some of your rent is just to cover the cost of defending against "suers", ie, professional plaintiffs who make money by bringing bogus fair housing & other suits in order to extort money from the landlord. One doesn't need any evidence to file a suit & continue the process. It costs big money to defend oneself, & the suers know this. File a suit for $1,000,000.....force the defendant to face spending $100,000 or so....& then offer to drop the suit for a couple hundred or a couple thousand dollars. I've been there & done that. These days, I spend about $20,000/year & a fair amount of time fighting bogus suits....oddly, not business related these days.

This is viciously a problem when it comes patent law.

 

[Revoltingest]

My reply then is to change the system, but not in a way that forces the losers to pay the expenses of the winner. Doing so has the very real risk of discouraging legit cases that are not likely to be won, but should still be brought up any ways. It would also be a way for corporations to flaunt their control over the system, because people would be even less likely to bring a case against them because they know they probably won't win.

Anyone who doesn't have enuf trust in the merits of their own case to risk covering the damage they cause shouldn't be suing.
As things are, corporations can quiet others with the very same technique, ie, spend their opponents into the ground in court.
It's about responsibility....if you try to f*** someone up using the courts, you should be held liable for their losses.

Gol dang rassin frassin lawyers....a shark with a pen is more dangerous than a robber with a gun.
At least the latter can be punished for breaking the law.
As for reforming the system, I don't believe that will ever happen....including my loser pay system.

Here's a suggestion....
How about having the taxpayers reimburse any defendant who wins a suit?

 

[Revoltingest]

This is viciously a problem when it comes patent law.

Yeah, patent law is a mess too.
Very murky, very expensive, & very great consequences.
Just ask Mr Selden (were he alive), who once held a patent on the automobile.

 

[dust1n]

Yeah, patent law is a mess too.
Very murky, very expensive, & very great consequences.
Just ask Mr Selden (were he alive), who once held a patent on the automobile.

Thanks. I looked a little into it and it seems like an interesting story. I'm gonna dig some more off work.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks. I looked a little into it and it seems like an interesting story. I'm gonna dig some more off work.

I wrote a paper back in school about the relationship between patent law & development of the internal combustion engine.
It was as exciting as you imagine.
Once, when helping the current Mrs Revolt babysit a young niece, I read this paper to the little tyke for a calming effect.
The niece is now 40ish & a lesbian.

 

[dust1n]

I wrote a paper back in school about the relationship between patent law & development of the internal combustion engine.
It was as exciting as you imagine.
Once, when helping the current Mrs Revolt babysit a young niece, I read this paper to the little tyke for a calming effect.
The niece is now 40ish & a lesbian.

Oh man, you think mechanical engines patents are something. If you were my age you'd have to write any one of the thousands of patent disputes of video game consoles. No wonder people go to law school.

 

[Marisa]

(Hey I'm only posting a news article.)

Gay Man Files $70M Suit Against Bible Publishers Over ‘Homosexual’ Verses

A homosexual man has filed a $70 million lawsuit against Bible publishers Zondervan and Thomas Nelson, alleging that their version of the Bible that refers to homosexuality as a sin violates his constitutional rights and has caused him emotional distress.

Thoughts from RF members?
Link for those who wish to read entire article.

My thoughts about this are pretty much the same as my thoughts about the nurse who tried to sue Planned Parenthood for employment discrimination when she flat out stated she wouldn't prescribe birth control in the interview. The world is full of idiots.