Woman sues all of the gay people on earth

[Evo]

I certainly hope that this is tossed out. But I've seen crazy things like some of the propositions in California.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/68342454/woman-sues-all-of-the-gay-people-on-earth

 

[StevieTNZ]

I doubt the court has the statutory jurisdiction to declare homosexuality a sin. Nor would it be in common law that it would.

 

[lisab]

This is just so...ugh, I can't find the words.

Honestly I try, I really try, to understand the world view of very socially conservative people. Again and again, I fail.

I understand how fiscally conservative people see the world, the type of conservative the media calls "hawks", and "small government" conservatives. I understand them, and appreciate their views as valid. I even find some common ground with them sometimes...not much but that's OK .

It's the social conservatives that leave me perplexed. It seems the core of their worldview is, "Fear people different from you, and squash them!". It's frightening.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The first thing she will need is about $50 billion, to serve all the defendants.

 

[StevieTNZ]

I would hardly think a judgement in one country would apply to every country in the world -- in fact if it did, it may invalidate laws that cannot be set aside by courts, should a decision be reached in her favour.

I would construe sin = illegal.

 

[jobyts]

Her handwriting is really nice.

 

[dlgoff]

... I've seen crazy things like some of the propositions in California.

Yep.

Manny Pacquiao and his fight promoters have been hit with a class action lawsuit by people who claim he screwed fans, Pay-per-view buyers and gamblers out of serious money by not disclosing his shoulder injury before the Mayweather fight.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2015/05/05/manny-pacquiao-sued-your-injury-lies-screwed-gamblers/#ixzz3ZQeqR9JV

 

[Rick21383]

*facepalm

This is clickbait folks. There is a 0 percent chance this will gain any sort of traction whatsoever, except getting passed around Facebook feeds. It's the ramblings of a mentally ill woman... nothing more.

The Pacquiao case is not at all similar and could actually come to fruition. In fact, he may be facing sanctions for failing to report a pre-existing shoulder injury.

Boxing is the only sport regulated by the government. This isn't the NBA or NFL. He didn't lie to a coach, he lied to the state of Nevada in order to be medically cleared. No one would have bought the PPV if he had not been medically cleared, because the fight wouldn't have been allowed to happen.

 

[StatGuy2000]

This is just so...ugh, I can't find the words.

Honestly I try, I really try, to understand the world view of very socially conservative people. Again and again, I fail.

I understand how fiscally conservative people see the world, the type of conservative the media calls "hawks", and "small government" conservatives. I understand them, and appreciate their views as valid. I even find some common ground with them sometimes...not much but that's OK .

It's the social conservatives that leave me perplexed. It seems the core of their worldview is, "Fear people different from you, and squash them!". It's frightening.

I completely agree with your view regarding social conservatives. I would add that social conservatives are by and large people who are inherently afraid and resistant to change of any sort and have a vision of an antiquated society that does not conform to actual reality.

On Evo's original post, I think it is quite clear to me that this woman's lawsuit is the epitome of a frivolous lawsuit, and will likely be tossed out (as it should).

 

[russ_watters]

So, I wasn't going to reply since this starts heading off topic, but since someone else did:

Honestly I try, I really try, to understand the world view of very socially conservative people. Again and again, I fail.

I understand how fiscally conservative people see the world, the type of conservative the media calls "hawks", and "small government" conservatives. I understand them, and appreciate their views as valid. I even find some common ground with them sometimes...not much but that's OK .

It's the social conservatives that leave me perplexed. It seems the core of their worldview is, "Fear people different from you, and squash them!". It's frightening.

I'm not really sure if this qualifies as "social conservative". Typically, social conservativism is equivalent to classical liberalism, which is about personal freedom and personal responsibility (in keeping with "small government"). Social liberals can claim something similar. The reality is that both favor government intrusions, just different types.

Next, "fiscal" and "social" overlap substantially, particularly for anything that costs money to the government (social security/medicare).

I would call this issue "religious conservativism" and say that it actually contradicts social conservativism by increasing scope of government.

This distinction is important to me, because as a nonreligious conservative I disagree with almost every religion-motivated position of the party (I'm pro choice, for example). But I do still follow the party line on nonreligious social issues (strong anti-drug/crime policy, for example).

You might say that republicans have a bit of a split personality in that way and I'd agree. In the US, unfortunately, the religious element has a lot of the power.

Both sides of the spectrum preach freedom because that's the root of modern democracy, but both have certain pet issues on which they want conformity, not freedom.

I also agree with Rick. Nothing to see here, don't mind the crazy lady; they'll cart her back to the home soon enough.

 

[russ_watters]

The Pacquiao case is not at all similar and could actually come to fruition. In fact, he may be facing sanctions for failing to report a pre-existing shoulder injury.

Boxing is the only sport regulated by the government. This isn't the NBA or NFL. He didn't lie to a coach, he lied to the state of Nevada in order to be medically cleared. No one would have bought the PPV if he had not been medically cleared, because the fight wouldn't have been allowed to happen.

While that's an interesting angle I hadn't thought of, I don't think there is a chance of a pass-through fraud case. Athletes have no written or implied contract with the public regarding their performance. So the only real issue is between the state and Pacquiao.

And I'm quite certain the State of Nevada cares exactly as much about this as the NFL cares about deflate-gate.

 

[Lisa!]

Why? Because she's single and she thinks that's their fault?

 

[Rick21383]

While that's an interesting angle I hadn't thought of, I don't think there is a chance of a pass-through fraud case. Athletes have no written or implied contract with the public regarding their performance. So the only real issue is between the state and Pacquiao.

I do agree that it's pretty unlikely. At first I thought it was utterly ridiculous until I read a little more into it. Now I'm not so sure.. but I think the odds of them winning on these grounds are pretty slim.

I'm out a grand total of $20 for the fight but I would hate to be the guy that dropped half a million on Pacquiao...

 

[zoobyshoe]

I would construe sin = illegal.

Some things are both sinful and illegal, take murder for example, but by no means are all sinful things illegal. A person might sit at home drinking to an extreme level of intoxication without breaking any laws, but most religions would probably consider this a sin. Conversely, an illegal thing might not be considered a sin at all. During the Nazi period in Germany it was illegal to harbor Jews in hiding, but people who did that are now considered religious heros in Christianity and Judaism.

That is the main reason this "lawsuit" is fundamentally whacky. The legal system doesn't concern itself with sin, as such.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Some things are both sinful and illegal, take murder for example, but by no means are all sinful things illegal. A person might sit at home drinking to an extreme level of intoxication without breaking any laws, but most religions would probably consider this a sin. Conversely, an illegal thing might not be considered a sin at all. During the Nazi period in Germany it was illegal to harbor Jews in hiding, but people who did that are now considered religious heros in Christianity and Judaism.

That is the main reason this "lawsuit" is fundamentally whacky. The legal system doesn't concern itself with sin, as such.

I merely construed a ruling that homosexuality being a sin, would mean it would be illegal. It wasn't meant as a comparison as all those things sinful are illegal.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I merely construed a ruling that homosexuality being a sin, would mean it would be illegal. It wasn't meant as a comparison as all those things sinful are illegal.

I only read the first page of the petition, but it doesn't look like she's concerned with it's legality. She seems only to want some sort of legal opinion to the effect it is a sin. That, as I said, doesn't make any particular sense, unless it's simply to get them to vocally acknowledge it's a sin in certain religions, as opposed to being silent about the issue. Hard to say where she's going with it.

 

[OmCheeto]

Her handwriting is really nice.

Dreadful spelling and punctuation.

1. Ambassador: I Sylvia Ann Driskell Ambassador for Plaintiff's
do set forth on this 30 day of 2015 in writing this Petition to
the United State District Court of Omaha, Omaha, Nebraka
On behalf of the Plintiff's: God, and His, Son, Jesus Christ.
...

ref

We used to get letters like this where I worked(a hospital). I would always scratch my head, and think; "I'm pretty sure this person is crazy, but I know people who are experts at this".

So one day, I handed one of the letters to our most senior emeritus Behavioral Neuroscientist, and after about 5 seconds, he stated; "This person is schizophrenic".

Personally, after reading letters like this, for 10 years, I believe this person is, in layman's terms, crazy.

 

[Borg]

I certainly hope that this is tossed out. But I've seen crazy things like some of the propositions in California.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/68342454/woman-sues-all-of-the-gay-people-on-earth

As Dana Carvey would say.

 

[OmCheeto]

One of my favorite bible "Homo" references:

There are 6 admonishments in the Bible concerning homosexual activity, and our enemies are always throwing them up to us, usually in a vicious way, and very much out of context. What they don't want us to remember, is that there are 362 admonishments in the Bible concerning heterosexual activity. I don't mean to imply by this that God doesn't love straight people, only that they seem to require a great deal more supervision.

Given that I'm a born again virgin, which I've heard as being defined as having not having had sex in about 10 years, I think I'll sue everyone on the planet.
Perverts!

ps. If there are any other born again virgins out there, please PM me, and we can turn this into a global class action law suit.

 

[StevieTNZ]

This matter was discussed on The View: http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/watch/...View-Co-Hosts-Talk-About-Suing-for-God/videos (for American IP's only)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Homosexuality is a sin and that they the homosexuals know it is a sin to live a life of homosexuality. Why else would they have been hiding in the closet

Fantastic logic there: why else would homosexuals hide?? Couldn't possibly be persecution, no no must be some sort of conscious decision because they know its a sin.

 

[StevieTNZ]

The case has been dismissed -- http://www.advocate.com/politics/ma...ismissed-federal-suit-against-all-homosexuals

 

[zoobyshoe]

The case has been dismissed -- http://www.advocate.com/politics/ma...ismissed-federal-suit-against-all-homosexuals

I had it pegged:

Indeed, Driskell didn't ask for any legal or injunctive relief in her filing. "To the extent that she asks for anything from the Court, it is a declaration that homosexuality is sinful — a question that the Court cannot answer," noted Gerrard. "The Court may decide what is lawful, not what is sinful."

 

[nuuskur]

Well, we do have freedom of speech and it's not like her biggotry is the most important matter at any given time. She got her attention, the Earth keeps spinning. Enjoy your meals :)

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

This is just so...ugh, I can't find the words.

Honestly I try, I really try, to understand the world view of very socially conservative people. Again and again, I fail.

I understand how fiscally conservative people see the world, the type of conservative the media calls "hawks", and "small government" conservatives. I understand them, and appreciate their views as valid. I even find some common ground with them sometimes...not much but that's OK .

It's the social conservatives that leave me perplexed. It seems the core of their worldview is, "Fear people different from you, and squash them!". It's frightening.

There is a practice found on both sides of the fence where you take the most absurd behavior done by the other side, and then you assign it to the mainstream. That's not what this woman represents. She is clearly a loon.

The social conservatives are those who simply do not want to change society that fast. The liberal view of society is change, sometimes just for the sake of changing.

So you "try to understand" why someone wouldn't want to change what they feel works. And you claim you don't get it. I think you do get it. I think you feel that whatever we're doing is never good enough such that changing things MUST be better and you don't want to believe that sometimes doing nothing is the best answer.

Remember that there is a concept called the Hippocratic Oath: First, Do No Harm. That's what social conservatives are saying. Don't make things worse before taking the time to explore the alternatives. That's not a wrong opinion. It is merely conservative.

The other stuff is merely religious nuts doing what religious nuts do. And you will find them on BOTH sides of the liberal/conservative divide. Yes, those who discuss Gaia as a living breathing thing and who hug trees are expressing a religious belief. They may not call it that, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

 

[StevieTNZ]

I had it pegged:

Had the case preceded, the 'sinful behaviour' would be a declaration of whether it is legal or not. But the Judge did not allow that.

 

[AlephNumbers]

Remember that there is a concept called the Hippocratic Oath: First, Do No Harm. That's what social conservatives are saying. Don't make things worse before taking the time to explore the alternatives. That's not a wrong opinion. It is merely conservative.

You seem to be implying that giving minorities equal rights could possibly be a bad thing for our society.

We gave women the right to vote. Many social conservatives maintained that this would have negative repercussions. Catastrophic, even. The US is still a global superpower, isn't it?

Social conservatism is a valid view, but as far as gay rights, or the rights of any minority is concerned, there should not even be a debate.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Had the case preceded, the 'sinful behaviour' would be a declaration of whether it is legal or not. But the Judge did not allow that.

I had it pegged: courts don't make rulings on what is sinful or not.

 

[AlephNumbers]

I had it pegged: courts don't make rulings on what is sinful or not.

Perhaps not in a country with a secular government.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Perhaps not in a country with a secular government.

Good catch! There was immanent danger I would be mistaken to be referring to all courts the world over.