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

[Revoltingest]

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.

Oh, I know that software patents are worse....far worse.

 

[dust1n]

Oh, I know that software patents are worse....far worse.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that essentially patents will have to reformed in some manner. But I'm agreement with you regarding an issue concerning frivolous lawsuits, but admitted am not aware of an immediate solution. Ideally, anyone should be able to bring up a legitimate lawsuit affordable, while defending against a lawsuit should be more affordable. The justice system doesn't really seem to exist regarding quantities of money that are less than 5 digits.

 

[Revoltingest]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that essentially patents will have to reformed in some manner. But I'm agreement with you regarding an issue concerning frivolous lawsuits, but admitted am not aware of an immediate solution. Ideally, anyone should be able to bring up a legitimate lawsuit affordable, while defending against a lawsuit should be more affordable. The justice system doesn't really seem to exist regarding quantities of money that are less than 5 digits.

Some reforms......
1) Before a case is accepted by the court, it should be vetted to verify.....
- There is a dispute of fact.
- The plaintiff has reasonable evidence which is not defeated by the defendant's. It should not be a fishing expedition.
- The plaintiff has exhausted all reasonable avenues to negotiate away the dispute.
2) Before a jury trial is granted in a civil suit, there must be a compelling reason it shouldn't be a bench trial. (Jury trials are less predictable, more time consuming, & costlier.)
3) Before filing a suit, the plaintiff must post a bond to pay the defendant's costs if the latter wins.j
A good case would warrant a lower bond cost, & even inspire a law firm to finance it for a percentage of a winning judgement.
4) A plaintiff who loses should pay the defendant's costs proportional to the preponderance of evidence. Example: If the defendant has a 60% strong cast to the plaintiff's 40%, then the plaintiff should pay 60% of the defendant's costs. This removes the amount of risk for which the plaintiff is reasonably not responsible.
5) Judges should be held to a strict standard of following the law, with severe sanctions if they don't.
6) Lawyers should be severely sanctioned for ill researched claims & misrepresenting material facts.
7) Judges should be severely sanctioned for showing up to court late.
8) Cases going to trial should be on a fast track. It should not take 3 years to schedule a trial which can be readied in 3 months.
9) If the little people can't have cel phones in a courthouse, then neither should lawyers or anyone else.

 

[leibowde84]

Much as I support equality and rights for homosexuals, this is an outright greedy attempt to just make some easy peezy moola with hopes of living a life of luxury.

Nothing new ... just another example of frivolous law-suits.

 

[The Hammer]

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

Considering our laws are not written around the premise of biblical law, this is a horrid argument. Since we can't "accept gay rights", or as I like to call it "equality" for all peoples, should we oppress them? Deny them basic rights until they repent from their wicked ways? Maybe we should just make all gays slaves (I could use a permanent interior decorator). Or maybe we should just execute them all? Which would be your preferred method of oppression @Servant_of_the_One1 ?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

How about just making the system less expensive? Or maybe randomly selected judges who travel to reduce the b.s. closed-door deals, bribes, and relationships? Or maybe better training for PDs? Or, perhaps even better, make it easier to represent yourself?
You can have a good solid case, and still lose. You shouldn't be expected to pay for the other side.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Considering our laws are not written around the premise of biblical law, this is a horrid argument. Since we can't "accept gay rights", or as I like to call it "equality" for all peoples, should we oppress them? Deny them basic rights until they repent from their wicked ways? Maybe we should just make all gays slaves (I could use a permanent interior decorator). Or maybe we should just execute them all? Which would be your preferred method of oppression @Servant_of_the_One1 ?

Or go Medieval and ban Islam, or heavily tax it, as their beliefs contradict and are incompatible with Christianity. If Servant of the One wants Biblical law, why stop short?

 

[Revoltingest]

How about just making the system less expensive? Or maybe randomly selected judges who travel to reduce the b.s. closed-door deals, bribes, and relationships? Or maybe better training for PDs? Or, perhaps even better, make it easier to represent yourself?
You can have a good solid case, and still lose. You shouldn't be expected to pay for the other side.

Quality of judges won't be raised by random assignment.
Plus, there's a learning curve for local laws.
The market determines the rate for lawyers (about $250/hour for the cheapest good ones).
If I have a good solid case & win my defense, the ********ing, boil ****ing, **********hole who
sued me should reimburse me.....& pay punitive damages.
I did nothing wrong, but I was attacked using the legal system. Why should I have to bear the cost?
The victim shouldn't have to pay, while the perp gets off scot free.

Bet ya don't know what the asterisks represent!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

I'll add frivolous suits.

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?

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.

I think there are two questions here:

- did the defendant violate the rights of the plaintiff?
- was the plaintiff wrong to bring the lawsuit forward?

It seems like you're arguing that the answers to these questions are always linked: that if the ddefendant wasn't found to have violated the plaintiff's rights, then the plaintiff was wrong to bring the lawsuit.

I don't think that this link is automatic. I think that sometimes, a lawsuit that gets defeated in court was still reasonable to bring forward.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Considering our laws are not written around the premise of biblical law, this is a horrid argument. Since we can't "accept gay rights", or as I like to call it "equality" for all peoples, should we oppress them? Deny them basic rights until they repent from their wicked ways? Maybe we should just make all gays slaves (I could use a permanent interior decorator). Or maybe we should just execute them all? Which would be your preferred method of oppression @Servant_of_the_One1 ?

No , its fine. USA made their choice between God vs Satan.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think there are two questions here:

- did the defendant violate the rights of the plaintiff?
- was the plaintiff wrong to bring the lawsuit forward?

It seems like you're arguing that the answers to these questions are always linked: that if the ddefendant wasn't found to have violated the plaintiff's rights, then the plaintiff was wrong to bring the lawsuit.

I don't think that this link is automatic. I think that sometimes, a lawsuit that gets defeated in court was still reasonable to bring forward.

Our problem is that there is a virtually unlimited right to bring suits (except against gov itself), & no one has the right to be free from legal harrassment.
This right & non-right are linked because power is given to someone who would harm another.

Reform is difficult because this situation is a revenue source for many workers in government (eg, judges, clerks) & the quaisi-private sector (eg, lawyers, who are officers of the court). Politicians are generally members of this system, eg, the Clintons, so they would never support reform which threatens the gravy train.

There are legitimate disputes which are best resolved in court. But in my experience, they are the minority of cases.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No , its fine. USA made their choice between God vs Satan.

No, it made the decision that people who do not believe will have one less religious law dictating their lives. People do not believe should not be expected to live according to someone else's religious dogma.
And I've noticed you still haven't addressed my point of passing anti-Islam laws, because Islam rejects Christ as the Messiah.

 

[The Hammer]

No , its fine. USA made their choice between God vs Satan.

That didn't answer my question, nice tuck and dodge. I asked your opinion on how you would oppress them if it was YOUR choice.

 

[Paranoid Android]

(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.

Geez..Grab a Kleenex and GET OVER IT !! Gimme a f!@#$%^ break ? Has he forgotten that in the COUNSTITUION you are GURANTEED the RIGHT to speak your mind ? I got called a f!@#$%^ RETARD and beaten up all the time. Who the F!@# gave a DAMN about ME ? I am supposed to cry crocodile tears over some gay guy, when somewhere in America, an African-American is being lynched ? WTF !!
No body a G!@#$%^ about any one else but the people who are shown on the t.v the most. You think it would been NICE if the G!@#$%^ Squards had given me ONE DAY when they didn't call me a Sped or a F!@#$%^ RETARD ? How much could I sue for 12 G!@#$%^ years of constant verbal and physical abuse ? 22 million ? How about a 100 MILLION Dollars ? Geez, what a f!@#$%^ goofball...

 

[leibowde84]

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

The Bible isn't considered a "fairy tale" by the constitution. It just isn't considered at all.

 

[Paranoid Android]

The Bible isn't considered a "fairy tale" by the constitution. It just isn't considered at all.

Give me a !@#$%^& break. He must not EVER read the Counstitution .

 

[leibowde84]

Give me a !@#$%^& break. He must not EVER read the Counstitution .

Propaganda is a powerful thing.

 

[columbus]

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

Ooooh, I will sir...
May I imagine a hard wind blowing?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Ooooh, I will sir...
May I imagine a hard wind blowing?
Tom

Aye, & me enemies driven before me, & their wimins lament'n.

 

[ether-ore]

Seems to me that at least one thing the law suit accomplishes is a tacit admission that the Bible does speak against homosexuality identifying it as a sin.