Gay man sues publishers over Bible verses

[Angel Heart]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-07-09-gay-bible_N.htm?csp=34

Gay man sues publishers over Bible verses

Religion News Service
CASCADE TOWNSHIP, Mich. — A gay man is suing two heavyweight Christian publishers, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability.
Bradley LaShawn Fowler of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan, based in Cascade Township, and $10 million from Nashville-based Thomas Nelson Publishing.


More...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Now if this were Canada......

 

[manifold]

tff!

 

[AllieBaba]

See, this is the problem with claiming that marriage means something other than what it actually means. It opens the door for diluting and changing the meaning of EVERYTHING and opens the door for attempting to destroy the values of people who think differently than progressives.

 

[Diuretic]

Can't a court dismiss an action which is patently stupid?

 

[Diuretic]

Now if this were Canada......

If it were in Canada it wouldn't have even got out of the lawyer's office. It's a frivolous and vexatious claim and would have been struck out immediately it was presented to a court.

 

[AllieBaba]

Let's hope it doesn't get before the 9th circuit court.

 

[Ravi]

Can't a court dismiss an action which is patently stupid?

Yes, and no doubt it will.

 

[AllieBaba]

I know. And then the bible will be illegal, there will be book burnings and we'll see how concerned with human rights and freedom of speech the libs really are.

 

[William Joyce]

I know. And then the bible will be illegal, there will be book burnings and we'll see how concerned with human rights and freedom of speech the libs really are.

Liberals would make the Bible illegal in a heartbeat.

 

[Steerpike]

The guy is an idiot. Private publishers can't violate his Constitutional rights to begin with, so that claim will be tossed immediately. The whole case is going right out the door imo.

 

[Gunny]

If it were in Canada it wouldn't have even got out of the lawyer's office. It's a frivolous and vexatious claim and would have been struck out immediately it was presented to a court.

Which makes it a PERFECT case for our legislating from the bench courts to take up.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If it were in Canada it wouldn't have even got out of the lawyer's office. It's a frivolous and vexatious claim and would have been struck out immediately it was presented to a court.

That would be why they have cases on thoughts and such in Canada? Ohh and remind me how that Judge threw out the case of a 12 year old sueing the father for grounding them.

 

[Diuretic]

Which makes it a PERFECT case for our legislating from the bench courts to take up.

I wouldn't think it would even get to judgement phase - as Steerpike pointed out.

 

[Diuretic]

That would be why they have cases on thoughts and such in Canada? Ohh and remind me how that Judge threw out the case of a 12 year old sueing the father for grounding them.

Irrelevant to the point at hand. As I said, it's vexatious, it has no grounds, if it were in a Canadian court it wouldn't get past the courtroom door.

If you're using a single strange matter in a provincial court - Quebec from memory - to make judgement over the entire legal system of Canada then I'd say you're on pretty shaky ground.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Irrelevant to the point at hand. As I said, it's vexatious, it has no grounds, if it were in a Canadian court it wouldn't get past the courtroom door.

If you're using a single strange matter in a provincial court - Quebec from memory - to make judgement over the entire legal system of Canada then I'd say you're on pretty shaky ground.

Single case? There are no thought police in Canada? With the power to punish for mere thought? And the case did not happen of a child taking a parent to court over grounding?

How about England and the new twist where children are racist if they do not like certain foods? Is that just a blip on the screen too?

 

[Diuretic]

Single case? There are no thought police in Canada? With the power to punish for mere thought? And the case did not happen of a child taking a parent to court over grounding?

How about England and the new twist where children are racist if they do not like certain foods? Is that just a blip on the screen too?

You know how people from outside America like to stereotype America? That's exactly what you're doing. Apart from the Supreme Court of Canada everything else is sorted out in the various justice systems of each province and territory (albeit that there is single criminal code in Canada which I think is a smart idea). The different provinces have different justice systems. All the provinces, as I indicated, follow the same criminal process but as for the civil process it's English common law derived except for Quebec which still uses its French-influenced system for civil law. The case you're making much of was determined in a Quebec court, presumably using the Civil Code of Quebec. But I could be wrong on that of course. Either way it doesn't matter. As I told you, a single decision in a single court in a nation that has many judicial decisions in any given day is a speck without influence. In addition all cases are decided on their own merits.

No, there are no thought police in Canada. There are various tribunals aside from the courts. Their proceedings are transparent. Thus, not thought police. Be careful about pointing that finger above the 49th parallel, you might get a bit of it back about how the US controls public expression in reality as opposed to the lofty principles of the First Amendment.

The English example which I read about courtesy of Joyce is an example of just how misguided British government authorities are when it comes to race relations. It reminds me of the Black Hole controvery in Dallas County. There are idiots everywhere.

 

[editec]

Stupid lawsuit.

One can only pray (if one is so inclined) that the courts will throw this case out of court and chastise the lawyer arrogant enough to waste its time with such nonsense.

FREE SPEECH is more important to a free people than guns by a large measure.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Dumb lawsuit, if the Word of God offends then so be it, but God isn't the one thats wrong, its the idiot who's suing thats wrong.

 

[Diuretic]

Dumb lawsuit, if the Word of God offends then so be it, but God isn't the one thats wrong, its the idiot who's suing thats wrong.

The Man Who Sued God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia