SCOTUS rules website designer does not have to design for a gay couple.

[SomeRandom]

People want that get rich quit scheme while doing nothing.

Ahh of course.
Money for nothing. The ancient capitalist dream

 

[SomeRandom]

We have a severe problem with meritless
suits being filed for the purpose of extorting
payment. It's rare that a plaintiff with a
frivolous suit is forced to pay the winning
side's legal costs.
Our civil court system is also set up to
encourage fighting over settling.
Every judge was once a lawyer profiting
from this, & will become one again
after leaving the court.

 

[We Never Know]

Ahh of course.
Money for nothing. The ancient capitalist dream

"Money for nothin' and your chicks for free"

 

[Revoltingest]

View attachment 79192

I've discussed switching to a loser-pays system
with many people. Oddly, it's the liberals who
want the right to sue people without consequences
for failed suits. It's just the defendant's lot in life
that they must bear the expense of wrongful suits
filed by someone else.

 

[SomeRandom]

I've discussed switching to a loser-pays system
with many people. Oddly, it's the liberals who
want the right to sue people without consequences
for failed suits. It's just the defendant's lot in life
that they must bear the expense of wrongful suits
filed by someone else.

Well if they want to waste the courts time and resources. I say why not?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well if they want to waste the courts time and resources. I say why not?

The typical argument is that the "little guy" should
have the right to sue "the big guy" without any
personal risk. They never consider that the "little guy"
gets sued too.

 

[SomeRandom]

The typical argument is that the "little guy" should
have the right to sue "the big guy" without any
personal risk. They never consider that the "little guy"
gets sued too.

Everyone gets sued.
But do so called “Christians” ever seem to care when they hurt marginalised communities?
Seemingly never. At least not with what I’ve ever read.
Hell according to this thread they made up a case just so they could hurt others. How very Jesus like

As soon as they get the slightest pushback, suddenly they’re the pariahs who are so put upon.
At least that’s what the news has told me for the last decade or so

(Disclaimer! I am not saying this of all Christians. Just pointing out that the folks involved in these kind of stunts claim to be as such.)

 

[Alien826]

The cost, ie, customers having to seek alternative
service vendors, is a small burden relatively (IMO).

In an area where most people are relatively "progressive", yes. But let's shift the focus to a small town in the Bible Belt where all businesses come up with an unspoken agreement to deny services to a particular group. We aren't at the position (legally) where that would be allowed yet, but I see it as possible one day.

There's an important test that should be applied to things where the camel's nose is still barely under the tent. What if everyone did this?

If you think this is unlikely, I remember a time when it was close to impossible for a couple to get a room in a hotel if they were unmarried. There was no law that supported it, but just about everyone obeyed this unwritten rule. The number of couples registering as "Mr and Mrs Smith" was considerable!

 

[Revoltingest]

Everyone gets sued.
But do so called “Christians” ever seem to care when they hurt marginalised communities?
Seemingly never. At least not with what I’ve ever read.

As soon as they get the slightest pushback, suddenly they’re the pariahs who are so put upon.
At least that’s what the news has told me for the last decade or so

It's so odd that Christians are the majority in
the country & its governments, yet they claim
persecution by secularists & heathens.
And many of the secularists are themselves
Christian. I guess that victimhood sells.

 

[Revoltingest]

In an area where most people are relatively "progressive", yes. But let's shift the focus to a small town in the Bible Belt where all businesses come up with an unspoken agreement to deny services to a particular group. We aren't at the position (legally) where that would be allowed yet, but I see it as possible one day.

Fortunately, if in some areas it becomes impossible
to get a gay wedding cake, this isn't much of a hardship.
It's still not as bad as compelling objectionable speech.
IMO.

There's an important test that should be applied to things where the camel's nose is still barely under the tent. What if everyone did this?

I'll buy a slippery slope argument if it's cromulent.
But this requires more than mention of camel noses.

If you think this is unlikely, I remember a time when it was close to impossible for a couple to get a room in a hotel if they were unmarried. There was no law that supported it, but just about everyone obeyed this unwritten rule. The number of couples registering as "Mr and Mrs Smith" was considerable!

We have progressed since then.
And being denied a hotel room by all hotels
is a far cry worse than not getting a custom
cake from some vendors.
Also, I see a difference between providing
residential accommodation & compelling
offensive speech.

 

[SomeRandom]

It's so odd that Christians are the majority in
the country & its governments, yet they claim
persecution by secularists & heathens.
And many of the secularists are themselves
Christian. I guess that victimhood sells.

Victimhood pays big bucks in America, apparently?
I’m not American so I can only comment on what international news and the internet has told me.

 

[Alien826]

Ahh of course.
Money for nothing. The ancient capitalist dream

I have personal experience that a law suit where you don't pay the lawyer unless you win is in practice far from free. All you don't pay is for the lawyer's actual work. Once you get into it, you find there are lots of things that doesn't cover. For example, expert witnesses charge very high fees.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Because it is not just about a LGBTQ+ movement. What about a NAZI or White supremacist group. What about a NAMBLA movement?
Should boycotting a company because you disagree with their moral values also be criminalized?
Or do you feel it is perfectly ok to use the government to enforce your personal moral values onto the rest of humanity.

That which is illegal cannot be protected. NAZIs and White Supremacists actively attempt to disenfranchise protected groups, which is illegal, and pederasty (sex with children) is likewise illegal.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have personal experience that a law suit where you don't pay the lawyer unless you win is in practice far from free. All you don't pay is for the lawyer's actual work. Once you get into it, you find there are lots of things that doesn't cover. For example, expert witnesses charge very high fees.

One quote I got for verifying a signature was $3,000.

 

[Nakosis]

That which is illegal cannot be protected. NAZIs and White Supremacists actively attempt to disenfranchise protected groups, which is illegal, and pederasty (sex with children) is likewise illegal.

Yes, illegal activity regardless of who is doing it, is illegal. However just being a member of these groups is not illegal.

 

[SomeRandom]

I have personal experience that a law suit where you don't pay the lawyer unless you win is in practice far from free. All you don't pay is for the lawyer's actual work. Once you get into it, you find there are lots of things that doesn't cover. For example, expert witnesses charge very high fees.

Interesting
Informative frubal

 

[Alien826]

One quote I got for verifying a signature was $3,000.

A surgeon, one day in court, $10,000.

 

[Revoltingest]

A surgeon, one day in court, $10,000.

That's a big cut in pay for them.
<snicker>

 

[Alien826]

That's a big cut in pay for them.
<snicker>

Part of it was that just any old surgeon wouldn't do. They had to be personally experienced in the exact surgical procedure that was the subject of the law suit. That made it difficult to find someone that qualified and pushed the price up. Something else interesting I discovered was that there are web sites just for expert witnesses to advertise, and it seems that it has become a profession in itself. We dropped the suit incidentally, despite our lawyer saying we had a good case. The likely expenses were too high,

 

[Revoltingest]

Part of it was that just any old surgeon wouldn't do. They had to be personally experienced in the exact surgical procedure that was the subject of the law suit. That made it difficult to find someone that qualified and pushed the price up. Something else interesting I discovered was that there are web sites just for expert witnesses to advertise, and it seems that it has become a profession in itself. We dropped the suit incidentally, despite our lawyer saying we had a good case. The likely expenses were too high,

Often it costs more to win than to lose.
Last case I had in court I was willing to spend
much more to win than to settle. And I did.
Money is useful to enjoy life & to do good.
I accomplished both by pissing it away on
lawyers that time.
I remember the win fondly & aggressively.
I'd regret giving up just to save money.