Prop 8 Has Been Overturned

[Uncle Ted]

Yeah, I'm still waiting for you to show evidence of any church that has been successfully sued and forced to perform a religious ceremony against its own doctrine. It's a bogeyman that the religious fascists like to prop up so they can scream about the gay agenda.

They haven't... yet. But it is a liability if there is a possibility that the church has to defend its religious freedom. Why else would the church come out with a statement on The Equality Act? Or are you saying the leaders of the church are a bunch of religious fascists and they are just propping up bogeymen for us?

It is hard to not see all the religious freedom vs LGBT rights lawsuits happening all over the place...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44501139

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-...reedom-n838016

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/11/17961...nation-lawsuit

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...o-discriminate

https://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...ruling/398306/

Potential of possible lawsuits = liability. Eliminate the potential (e.g., get out of business of marrying people) and the church eliminates some of the liability.

[LVAllen]

They haven't... yet. But it is a liability if there is a possibility that the church has to defend its religious freedom. Why else would the church come out with a statement on The Equality Act? Or are you saying the leaders of the church are a bunch of religious fascists and they are just propping up bogeymen for us?

Well, seeing as the Church has never made the claim that the Equality Act will force it to conduct marriage ceremonies in opposition to its own doctrine, I'd suggest that the Church came out with a statement on the Equality Act for the reasons it said it did.

[Applejack]

Potential of possible lawsuits = liability.

I don't care what 4chan says, that is not the definition of liability.

[Bo Diddley]

I don't care what 4chan says, that is not the definition of liability.

It's probably semantics with respect to what fits "legal definitions" as opposed to how words might be reasonably used among lay persons. You could certainly call it risk mitigation.

[creekster]

It's probably semantics with respect to what fits "legal definitions" as opposed to how words might be reasonably used among lay persons. You could certainly call it risk mitigation.

Agreed, except it is not semantics. Nonetheless, I think UT is generally correct and I have long thought the church should get out of the marrying business, a least in the eyes of the state.

[Bo Diddley]

Agreed, except it is not semantics. Nonetheless, I think UT is generally correct and I have long thought the church should get out of the marrying business, a least in the eyes of the state.

Semantics: the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text. I'll defer to you because I have no doubt you're much smarter than me in such things. But where did I go wrong? Where's DH when you need him?

[creekster]

Semantics: the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text. I'll defer to you because I have no doubt you're much smarter than me in such things. But where did I go wrong? Where's DH when you need him?

Claiming that something is "just semantics" is an easy and often lazy way for people to ignore distinctions in definitions that can be meaningful and add precision to discussions. Saying that the way a lawyer uses the term liability, when discussing a lawsuit (!) is just 'semantics' ignores what the word liability means inthe very contest in which it is being discussed. It is "semantics" in the sense that we are talking about the meaning of a word, but it is not a meaningless distinction. It is, rather, a precise use of a term in a particular context. My point was that even though I think UT was using the word incorrectly, his point remains valid.

[YOhio]

... I have long thought the church should get out of the marrying business, a least in the eyes of the state.

Steady the arc much, Uzzah?

[Bo Diddley]

Claiming that something is "just semantics" is an easy and often lazy way for people to ignore distinctions in definitions that can be meaningful and add precision to discussions. Saying that the way a lawyer uses the term liability, when discussing a lawsuit (!) is just 'semantics' ignores what the word liability means inthe very contest in which it is being discussed. It is "semantics" in the sense that we are talking about the meaning of a word, but it is not a meaningless distinction. It is, rather, a precise use of a term in a particular context. My point was that even though I think UT was using the word incorrectly, his point remains valid.

Ok, but I didn't claim it was "just semantics". In fact, I qualified the statement by showing how I was using the term semantics in such a way to fit its definition.

[creekster]

Ok, but I didn't claim it was "just semantics". In fact, I qualified the statement by showing how I was using the term semantics in such a way to fit its definition.

Ok. Your post was perfectly fine and I do not mean to quibble or disagree with you at all. Good job.

[Bo Diddley]

Ok. Your post was perfectly fine and I do not mean to quibble or disagree with you at all. Good job.

I thought that was the kind of back and forth you enjoy.

[creekster]

I thought that was the kind of back and forth you enjoy.

Only when I think it matters or I have time to spare.

[Bo Diddley]

Let's not let this get lost in the white noise:

Steady the arc much, Uzzah?

[Uncle Ted]

I don't care what 4chan says, that is not the definition of liability.

So should I only buy liability insurance when someone is suing me?

[Flystripper]

So should I only buy liability insurance when someone is suing me?

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?