SCOTUS and Gay Marriage

[carlfense]

So, if the guy suing me signs an affidavit saying he is gay and he finds a schmuck family member that he promises to share the money with to sign an affidavit that he came out of the closet last year.....I'm screwed.

BRB . . . read post #325 for an easily understandable example.

 

Proving that he is gay won't mean anything unless he can show that you discriminated against him because he was gay.

 

You're still fixated on step one for some reason.

[Ulty]

 

So, if the guy suing me signs an affidavit saying he is gay and he finds a schmuck family member that he promises to share the money with to sign an affidavit that he came out of the closet last year.....I'm screwed.

 

If your only defense is questioning his gayness? Probably.

 

That means you didn't pass these tests either:

If you had a legitimate reason for not hiring the guy, it wouldn't matter. If you didn't hire lesser qualified candidates after interviewing this guy, it wouldn't matter. If your interactions were professional and appropriate during the interview, it wouldn't matter.

[carlfense]

If you're that worried about proving whether or not someone is gay, a 5 minute witness interview would be sufficient. A fmaily member saying "yep, he came out of the closet last year," or a boyfriend saying that they used to date. It doesn't have to be the Spanish Inquisition.

Objection, hearsay, foundation.

And these cases don't begin in court, and usually don't end up there at all. A desk jockey like me is going to make the decision based on the preponderance of the evidence and pass along my findings to whatever Commission has the legal authority to wrap it up. If a company or attorney crowed about "objections" or "hearsay" without evidence of their own, I laugh with my coworkers about the stupid overzealous attorney and process the case anyway.

Stupid overzealous attorneys.

[StPaulHusker]

If you're that worried about proving whether or not someone is gay, a 5 minute witness interview would be sufficient. A fmaily member saying "yep, he came out of the closet last year," or a boyfriend saying that they used to date. It doesn't have to be the Spanish Inquisition.

Objection, hearsay, foundation.

And these cases don't begin in court, and usually don't end up there at all. A desk jockey like me is going to make the decision based on the preponderance of the evidence and pass along my findings to whatever Commission has the legal authority to wrap it up. If a company or attorney crowed about "objections" or "hearsay" without evidence of their own, I laugh with my coworkers about the stupid overzealous attorney and process the case anyway.

 

So, if the guy suing me signs an affidavit saying he is gay and he finds a schmuck family member that he promises to share the money with to sign an affidavit that he came out of the closet last year.....I'm screwed.

If he screws you, I guess that would be good proof he is gay.

[carlfense]

Really? That is what I'm asking for from you. I'm asking for how you would back up the testimony of someone who is gay and you having been able to produce any way of doing it.

Oh, come on. You don't need me to explain this to you.

 

Here is a video of my client entering a gay bar every Friday night for the past year.

Here is the testimony of his boyfriend.

Here is the testimony of his ex-boyfriend.

Here's his old sex tape. (ha.)

 

As a side note . . . do you think that there are a lot of fake gays out there?

[carlfense]

If he screws you, I guess that would be good proof he is gay.

To demonstrate how gay he is, my client will now screw BRB in the middle of the courtroom.

[Ulty]

 

Stupid overzealous attorneys.

[Ulty]

If he screws you, I guess that would be good proof he is gay.

To demonstrate how gay he is, my client will now screw BRB in the middle of the courtroom.

Objection overruled. You may proceed.

[BigRedBuster]

If you're that worried about proving whether or not someone is gay, a 5 minute witness interview would be sufficient. A fmaily member saying "yep, he came out of the closet last year," or a boyfriend saying that they used to date. It doesn't have to be the Spanish Inquisition.

Objection, hearsay, foundation.

And these cases don't begin in court, and usually don't end up there at all. A desk jockey like me is going to make the decision based on the preponderance of the evidence and pass along my findings to whatever Commission has the legal authority to wrap it up. If a company or attorney crowed about "objections" or "hearsay" without evidence of their own, I laugh with my coworkers about the stupid overzealous attorney and process the case anyway.

 

So, if the guy suing me signs an affidavit saying he is gay and he finds a schmuck family member that he promises to share the money with to sign an affidavit that he came out of the closet last year.....I'm screwed.

If he screws you, I guess that would be good proof he is gay.

 

 

Well played.

[BigRedBuster]

Really? That is what I'm asking for from you. I'm asking for how you would back up the testimony of someone who is gay and you having been able to produce any way of doing it.

Oh, come on. You don't need me to explain this to you.

 

Here is a video of my client entering a gay bar every Friday night for the past year.

Here is the testimony of his boyfriend.

Here is the testimony of his ex-boyfriend.

Here's his old sex tape. (ha.)

 

As a side note . . . do you think that there are a lot of fake gays out there?

 

 

Hey...I'm having fun with a conversation about what ifs....

 

I'm a firm believer that many laws are needed but almost always there are negative consequences for every law.

 

I don't think there are lots of "fake" gays out there but I do believe there are lots of crazy people who will try to screw people out of money if they have the chance.

[carlfense]

I don't think there are lots of "fake" gays out there but I do believe there are lots of crazy people who will try to screw people out of money if they have the chance.

Fortunately for the law abiding, those crazy people tend to lack credibility.

[sd'sker]

if you look at wrongful termination cases right now, it is extremely hard to prove. i do not see why prohibiting discrimination against gays would make that any different.

[Notre Dame Joe]

"Your honor it is clear that man is gay, his dick tastes like sh#t"

 

But the thread is arguing about burden of proof in these cases. You are implicitly accepting that these cases should be allowed at all. By walling off protected classes, you are saying that some people are special {race, religious, gay, women} and other people are not {fat, ugly, tattoos, shy, strippers}.

 

The dream scenario is freedom for everyone, no special classes.

[carlfense]

The dream scenario is freedom for everyone, no special classes.

And there's a reason why that currently remains a dream scenario.

[Ulty]

"Your honor it is clear that man is gay, his dick tastes like sh#t"

 

But the thread is arguing about burden of proof in these cases. You are implicitly accepting that these cases should be allowed at all. By walling off protected classes, you are saying that some people are special {race, religious, gay, women} and other people are not {fat, ugly, tattoos, shy, strippers}.

 

The dream scenario is freedom for everyone, no special classes.

 

Um, no. We're not talking about giving anyone "special" status. Civil rights laws exist because certain classes have been historically discriminated against in this country and therefore need legislative protection.

 

Are you trying to argue that civil rights laws give some sort of special treatment to minorities and women and are unnecessary? Rand Paul, is that you?