woman will be outed in church for her sins

[Ravi]

I don't know whether the church could be held liable for that. Another thing to keep in mind is that it might be harder to bring an action against a church for something that falls within the religious activities of the church, though I don't think it would be entirely precluded by any means.

heh, I'd like to see it go to court just to find out...especially since she is no longer a member of the church.

 

[Sunni Man]

And you know......if I was your spouse,

Get it in your head ABikerSailor.

I don't swing that way!!

So quit hitting on me you sick homo!!!

 

[AllieBaba]

Because they are publicly slandering her in the community. She should ******* sue their asses.

If it's true it's not slander.

 

[Steerpike]

heh, I'd like to see it go to court just to find out...especially since she is no longer a member of the church.

Yeah, would be an interesting case.

If they're telling lies about her, then a slander case should be fine.

If they're not telling lies, then I'd be interested in knowing whether this is a common practice at the church. If it is, and if she attended knowing that it was, I'd be hard pressed to punish the church in any way for talking about it openly. I might not like it, but I wouldn't bring to bear the power of the government to stop it.

 

[Ravi]

Yeah, would be an interesting case.

If they're telling lies about her, then a slander case should be fine.

If they're not telling lies, then I'd be interested in knowing whether this is a common practice at the church. If it is, and if she attended knowing that it was, I'd be hard pressed to punish the church in any way for talking about it openly. I might not like it, but I wouldn't bring to bear the power of the government to stop it.

If they aren't telling lies I don't suppose it would matter unless what they say harms her in some way. I would also think the fact that she quit the church and they still went public would go against the church...it isn't like she's committed a crime.

 

[Steerpike]

If they aren't telling lies I don't suppose it would matter unless what they say harms her in some way. I would also think the fact that she quit the church and they still went public would go against the church...it isn't like she's committed a crime.

Yeah but if they're telling the truth, even if she's harmed I wonder what kind of claim she has. Just because someone is harmed by something doesn't automatically give them a claim against another person. It has to be established that the other party did something wrong.

Tough case.

I'm not a religious person, but I'm very protective of the first amendment. And unlike a lot of people I run across, I am protective of all of it, including the protections that favor religious institutions and speech that I may not necessarily like.

If they're telling the truth, it should be a tough case. If this is a common practice of the church and she knew it when she was a member, the case should be even tougher.

 

[Ravi]

Yeah but if they're telling the truth, even if she's harmed I wonder what kind of claim she has. Just because someone is harmed by something doesn't automatically give them a claim against another person. It has to be established that the other party did something wrong.

Tough case.

I'm not a religious person, but I'm very protective of the first amendment. And unlike a lot of people I run across, I am protective of all of it, including the protections that favor religious institutions and speech that I may not necessarily like.

If they're telling the truth, it should be a tough case. If this is a common practice of the church and she knew it when she was a member, the case should be even tougher.

I've got a feeling the church is going to back down and say nothing.

 

[Steerpike]

I've got a feeling the church is going to back down and say nothing.

They may. It makes them look bad, and it seems like the negative publicity would be bad enough, without having to defend a suit if she brings one.

 

[AllieBaba]

If they aren't telling lies I don't suppose it would matter unless what they say harms her in some way. I would also think the fact that she quit the church and they still went public would go against the church...it isn't like she's committed a crime.

If they aren't telling lies it doesn't matter if it DOES harm her, unless they are violating some confidentiality clause or unless they are undertaking a "campaign" to cause her monetary harm.

I'm telling you, this is just more evidence of the press jumping all over an opportunity to malign Christians. It's gossip, for Pete's sakes. It happens a million times a day. It's not illegal and it's significant of nothing.

 

[Ravi]

If they aren't telling lies it doesn't matter if it DOES harm her, unless they are violating some confidentiality clause or unless they are undertaking a "campaign" to cause her monetary harm.

I'm telling you, this is just more evidence of the press jumping all over an opportunity to malign Christians. It's gossip, for Pete's sakes. It happens a million times a day. It's not illegal and it's significant of nothing.

I think this group of Christians is doing a good job of maligning themselves.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If they aren't telling lies it doesn't matter if it DOES harm her, unless they are violating some confidentiality clause or unless they are undertaking a "campaign" to cause her monetary harm.

I'm telling you, this is just more evidence of the press jumping all over an opportunity to malign Christians. It's gossip, for Pete's sakes. It happens a million times a day. It's not illegal and it's significant of nothing.

Listen you dumb whore, the ******* PRIEST violated some confidentiality clause by choosing to speak about her private life from the pulpit.

If you think this is okay, you've got a really ******* twisted view of how we should be around God.

 

[Steerpike]

Listen you dumb whore, the ******* PRIEST violated some confidentiality clause by choosing to speak about her private life from the pulpit.

That's not necessarily true. Try to be rational for a minute. Whether there is a breach of confidentiality, and more importantly whether there is anything actionable, is an open question.

 

[AllieBaba]

Listen you dumb whore, the ******* PRIEST violated some confidentiality clause by choosing to speak about her private life from the pulpit.

If you think this is okay, you've got a really ******* twisted view of how we should be around God.

Gay biker, there was no priest.
And people get admonished from the pulpit. Pastors pray for people by name, but they will also warn their congregations against dangerous behavior, and name names as well.

Once again, if it's true, and no confidentiality clause is violated (and I haven't seen anything that makes me think she confided in the pastor about her sins....rather that she just told congregation members) then it's not slander, and there's nothing she can do about it. Time to move on. Don't like it? Don't join that church.

 

[ABikerSailor]

That's not necessarily true. Try to be rational for a minute. Whether there is a breach of confidentiality, and more importantly whether there is anything actionable, is an open question.

I am being rational. Doctors, lawyers and priests are all bound by confidentiality laws. Doctors and lawyers are bound by actual law, and priests are bound by virtue of their position in society.

If it was told to the priest, he has absolutely no right to violate that confidence.

I hope that she sues and takes the church for everything they've got.

 

[Sunni Man]

Listen you dumb whore, the ******* PRIEST violated some confidentiality clause by choosing to speak about her private life from the pulpit.

The Catholic Church has Priests and a confessional. There are Priest confidentiality rules they must follow.

This woman's Church has a Preacher. There is No Preacher confidentiality regulations.

 

[AllieBaba]

I think this group of Christians is doing a good job of maligning themselves.

But then again, you don't really know. You only know what you've been told.

So you're basing your judgment of them based upon gossip. And blabbing it on the internet.

So I guess you're in the same boat.

 

[Steerpike]

I am being rational. Doctors, lawyers and priests are all bound by confidentiality laws. Doctors and lawyers are bound by actual law, and priests are bound by virtue of their position in society.

If it was told to the priest, he has absolutely no right to violate that confidence.

I hope that she sues and takes the church for everything they've got.

I'm not sure it is the case that a priest is BOUND by confidentiality laws. A priest cannot be compelled to violate confidentiality of, for example, confession, because the law respects it, but that's not the same thing as saying a priest violates the law if he does speak. I'd like to see the statute on that one.

 

[Ravi]

But then again, you don't really know. You only know what you've been told.

So you're basing your judgment of them based upon gossip. And blabbing it on the internet.

So I guess you're in the same boat.

Again, a minister's job isn't spreading gossip. Can you seriously see Jesus doing something so vindictive?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Again, a minister's job isn't spreading gossip. Can you seriously see Jesus doing something so vindictive?

First of all gossip is "groundless rumor."

The point here that she is belonging to an organization and is flagrantly breaking the rules.

For example, if she was a vegan and was surreptitiously eating ham sandwiches, would it be wrong to inform the other members?

 

[Anguille]

First of all gossip is "groundless rumor."

The point here that she is belonging to an organization and is flagrantly breaking the rules.

For example, if she was a vegan and was surreptitiously eating ham sandwiches, would it be wrong to inform the other members?

Is it part of the vegan creed to rat people out?