Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Prop 8 Has Been Overturned

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Flystripper View Post
    when the probability of losing a lawsuit is approximately zero I would suggest not getting insurance with that particular coverage. I mean you can probably find an insurance company to give you an alien probe rider but why would you worry about that?
    Because people notice that I live down the street from George W. Bush and think I am rich or something... That alien probe rider, I am guessing, is only a few pennies more.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

    Comment


    • The semantic point aside, you have to worry about more than just losing the lawsuit. It is not at all uncommon for defendants who are certain they would win at trial to fold just because they can’t afford to get all the way through to their win at trial. Lawyers are too expensive.
      τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Uncle Ted View Post
        So should I only buy liability insurance when someone is suing me?
        Liability insurance protects you from your (future) liability.
        Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

        "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

        GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by All-American View Post
          The semantic point aside, you have to worry about more than just losing the lawsuit. It is not at all uncommon for defendants who are certain they would win at trial to fold just because they can’t afford to get all the way through to their win at trial. Lawyers are too expensive.
          I would venture a guess that the mormon church does not find itself in such a position.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Walter Sobchak View Post
            Oh, brother. Just provide a link to your podcast already.

            Good for the LDS Church (and the Catholic Church, and the ...). The Equality Act is a legal land grab and should be met with vigorous resistance. For example, gender identity is far too ambiguous to be given a protected class status.
            No kidding.

            From the opening line in the church statement:

            The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is deeply concerned that the ongoing conflicts between religious liberty and LGBT rights are poisoning our civil discourse, eroding the free exercise of religion and preventing diverse Americans of good will from living together in respect and peace.
            Initial response to this statement on social media is yet more proof of how broken civil discourse is in America right now.
            "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
            "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
            "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

            Comment


            • Originally posted by falafel View Post
              Liability insurance protects you from your (future) liability.
              Well that is stoopid... Why don't they just call it "(future) liability insurance" then?
              "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
              "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
              "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
              GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                Initial response to this statement on social media is yet more proof of how broken civil discourse is in America right now.
                I don’t disagree. I’d also argue that the church’s statement on this is also proof of how broken the system is right now. It’s not an unreasonable proposal to provide legal protections to certain groups. Just because it falls a little outside the church’s wishes doesn’t mean they should oppose it. I do like that the church has provided a model of what they would support, but they seem to only support something if it fits 100% into what they want.
                "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Applejack View Post
                  I would venture a guess that the mormon church does not find itself in such a position.
                  Maybe not that they "can't afford" a trial, but I'd venture that they settle any number of meritless cases to avoid the cost of trial.
                  τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Moliere View Post
                    I don’t disagree. I’d also argue that the church’s statement on this is also proof of how broken the system is right now. It’s not an unreasonable proposal to provide legal protections to certain groups. Just because it falls a little outside the church’s wishes doesn’t mean they should oppose it. I do like that the church has provided a model of what they would support, but they seem to only support something if it fits 100% into what they want.
                    Isn't what you support/propose to happen by definition (semantics!) 100% what you want?
                    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Moliere View Post
                      I don’t disagree. I’d also argue that the church’s statement on this is also proof of how broken the system is right now. It’s not an unreasonable proposal to provide legal protections to certain groups. Just because it falls a little outside the church’s wishes doesn’t mean they should oppose it. I do like that the church has provided a model of what they would support, but they seem to only support something if it fits 100% into what they want.
                      Not just that but they also explicitly stated that freedom of religion should be given substantially more protections than the protections afforded to LGBTQ people. It sure seems like an odd stance to take considering the disparity of discrimination levied at religion as opposed to LGBTQ people. For example, I don't recall anyone recently putting millions of dollars into advocacy to prevent religious people from marrying.

                      Also, to the Dude's point about civil discourse, it is absolutely a problem in our society. One that the LDS church has contributed to. The LDS church wasn't exactly civil in their opposition to gay marriage.
                      As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
                      --Kendrick Lamar

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
                        Not just that but they also explicitly stated that freedom of religion should be given substantially more protections than the protections afforded to LGBTQ people. It sure seems like an odd stance to take considering the disparity of discrimination levied at religion as opposed to LGBTQ people. For example, I don't recall anyone recently putting millions of dollars into advocacy to prevent religious people from marrying.

                        Also, to the Dude's point about civil discourse, it is absolutely a problem in our society. One that the LDS church has contributed to. The LDS church wasn't exactly civil in their opposition to gay marriage.
                        I'll say this again: doesn't a constitutionally guaranteed right (one that was a pillar of the founding of this country) deserve more protection than a non-constitutionally guaranteed right?
                        Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

                        "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

                        GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by creekster View Post
                          Isn't what you support/propose to happen by definition (semantics!) 100% what you want?
                          No. Ever heard of compromise?
                          Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

                          "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

                          GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by falafel View Post
                            I'll say this again: doesn't a constitutionally guaranteed right (one that was a pillar of the founding of this country) deserve more protection than a non-constitutionally guaranteed right?
                            I think you are actually looking at two constitutionally protected rights here. There is that whole equal protection clause.
                            As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
                            --Kendrick Lamar

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
                              I think you are actually looking at two constitutionally protected rights here. There is that whole equal protection clause.
                              Serious question, because I don't know the answer. Has the type of equal protection for LGBQT people you are advocating ever been recognized as a constitutionally protected right?
                              Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

                              "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

                              GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by falafel View Post
                                No. Ever heard of compromise?
                                He wasn't criticizing the church's negotiating stance, he was criticising the church's stated position.
                                PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X