At the NC capitol.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Would you sue a transgender person for using the bathroom?
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
At the NC capitol.
Does that include the discomfort of women who aren't comfortable sharing a washroom with a trans man?
esmith
Veteran Member
I don't like public bathrooms for one very large (small) problem. Back in my younger days became infested with a vermin, after using a public restroom, .that is very very very hard to eradicate .
Curious George
Veteran Member
So, it looks like you are trying to sue me under a Negligence theory. That is your cause of action. Violating ones property rights such as the quiet enjoyment of one's property could occur under private nuisance law. Interference with the quiet enjoyment of property is a cause of action.
The point is that you will have to create a fact pattern wherein my behavior constitutes a cause of action. A statute can legally define a cause of action where none existed that is what is happening with the bathroom law.
I use the men's room, of course. Nobody cares about it.
Oh, and if you're not sure what a trans man is: Trans man - Wikipedia
Don't worry though....I don't plan to sue you, the fashion faux pas notwithstanding.
I'm pretty sure we've all shared the restroom with transgendered many times without our knowledge. And tomorrow still came. Go figure how a little fear and ignorance works.
The whole issue here forcing people to declare their sex and, sometimes, sexuality just to use the restroom.
In the ashram I go to, there are three temples. In the Murugan temple, which is I guess the central temple, the women sit on the left and the men sit on the right. Guru (the Sri Lankan founder of the ashram) died a few years ago, but always used with no particular fanfare that eventually it would be 'women on the left, men on the right, everybody else in the middle'.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Cheers
I think that they had came up with a lotion to get rid of those types of critters long ago.
What you should have is a limit to what lawyers may charge. This would fix a lot of things.
Bad idea.
There is often a huge amount of work to be done, & spending limits would curb investigation & research.
Ever been sued for a lot of money over an issue with many aspects?
It's amazing how much work that is.
Better solution...;
Plaintiff's who file losing suits should pay the costs of the winning side.
They take a risk seeking gain from others.
A winning defendant should be made whole, having borne great expense for doing nothing wrong.
Last edited:
Lawyers are subsidized at great cost to all other professions. The people who actually do most of that research work are probably temps assisted by paralegals. At most they are making 20$ per hour. Cut the lawyer subsidy.
What is this subsidy?
Lawyers do cost us a bunch.
But our problem is the way the system works.
Anyone can sue anyone else for anything, & the losing plaintiff rarely ever pays the winning side's costs.
Lawyers & judges favor this system because it feathers their nest.
A loser pay system would end the gravy train.
Btw, all judges I know were once practicing lawyers, & will return to the profession again.
One of my lawyers was a judge before, & another plans on becoming one.
So they all have the same motives.
Just last year, I heard a motion for awarding attorney fee reimbursement
opposed because he claimed it would prevent people from suing each other.
The judge agreed. (It's now in appeal.)
Now we are talking, but first I recognize your idea may help de-incentivize lawyer misbehavior, which is why they will oppose it.
About the subsidy: Lawyers are part of a club that refuses to recognize normal language for legal purposes, and the government protects their privilege to do so. Yes, you are permitted to write whatever you wish; but nobody can confidently write a contract without lawyer-language and a lot of strange exclusions, definitions and inclusions. The terminology required is bizarre.
Currently it is always profitable for the lawyers involved. Their pay is so high it provides incentive for any two opposing lawyers to split the proceeds no matter who wins or even to fix the outcome. I have no reason to think this is uncommon. What else do you suppose happens when there is money no matter who wins, and even if they do not come to arrangements the mathematical expected value is higher for both lawyers if the loser does not have to pay. If you were a lawyer what would you do? Your idea of making the loser pay results in less money overall, so it is not going to get supported by the lawyer class. Best wishes.
Hello?
There is necessity in having specialized jargon. Common language is risky to
use because meanings are less precise. Legalese can be learned...I write my
own leases using it when necessary. But I have my lawyer look things over.
There's nothing to be gained by changing the language.
Lawyers don't split the proceeds. But the system might make it appear that way to the uninvolved.
The courts set things up to require a great many steps which avoid reasonable adjudication.
Even the mediation process is designed to prevent settlement, & keep things in court. (Been
there & done that....it's expensive & worthless...benefiting only the lawyers).
Oh, I know a loser pay system is vigorously opposed by lawyers, judges, & dependent
industries, eg, court reporters, court staff. But I've found (to my surprise) that it's also
opposed by a great many on the left (not all), who feel that the right to sue someone
without consequences is good for society.
Why say that they are on the left? That is the conservative standpoint.
It's because when I discuss the loser pay system, it's typically my leftish leaning friends who
dislike the idea. This is not to say that all leftish ones disagree....some agree with me.
But no libertarian or conservative ones oppose "loser pay". I was quite surprised by this
cuz I thought lefties would agree because of the use of SLAPP suits by large corporations.
Ref....
Strategic lawsuit against public participation - Wikipedia
Btw, I'm working to change everyone to be pro-loser pay, thereby making it a non-partisan issue.
I am one of those leftist people who disagrees.
If one side has a lot of money, they can freely bring suits because they can risk the loss. But someone living in poverty would not be able to afford to sue even if they feel they have a good and just case, because there is always the possibility that they could lose. Consider an ex-employee who wants to sue his billionaire boss. But billionaire can ramp up the court cost, hire a team of expensive lawyers and fancy investigators, lab costs, and other expenses, as you said it can get very expensive. And what is to stop the winning side from padding those expenses, exaggerating hours etc.
No, you are giving an unfair advantage to those already advantaged. Courts are suppose to be a place where things are equal and fair.
I would support the idea of the winning side being able to sue for the court costs, but it should not be automatic. The winning side should only get the court costs paid if they can show that the case was either frivolously or maliciously brought, and then only win reasonable court fees. You mentioned SLAPP cases. But there you have to prove in court that the case was brought maliciously and was an abuse of the court system. It is not automatic.