Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

LGBTT: It's Raining DOMA Rulings! (It's for Thread)

194959799100

Posts

  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Wait, so it's sufficient to prove that the proffered reason might be pretextual? That's all? Because that seems...counter to our usual legal philosophy in this country. Am I misunderstanding you?

    To avoid summary judgment, yes. That it was a pretext would need to be shown by a preponderance of the evidence to prevail at trial.

    Ah, that makes more sense. Carry on.

    Why is avoiding summary judgment so important? Are judges expected to give smaller awards than juries?

  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    Wait, so it's sufficient to prove that the proffered reason might be pretextual? That's all? Because that seems...counter to our usual legal philosophy in this country. Am I misunderstanding you?

    To avoid summary judgment, yes. That it was a pretext would need to be shown by a preponderance of the evidence to prevail at trial.

    Ah, that makes more sense. Carry on.

    Why is avoiding summary judgment so important? Are judges expected to give smaller awards than juries?

    Jury trials are much longer (so more expensive) and unpredictable. And juries have, yes, been known to go, "We hate the plaintiff and demand that they pay... 100 squintillion dollars!" Frequently in those cases the judge (or an appeals judge) will later lower the judgment to something a bit more reasonable.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    You mean the defendant?

  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    This is going around Facebook today.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/11/missouri-man-arrested-at-hospital-for-refusing-to-leave-gay-partner/

    It's a little vague on the details but I'm still pissed this still goes on.

    MuddBudd on
    steam_sig.png
    Sweeney TomEdith Upwards
  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    I was just coming here to post about that. He had medical power of attorney and the hospital just didn't even bother to confirm it, and now he's got a restraining order so he can't visit at all.

    Its just absolutely fucking disgusting and reminds me of that Thomas Bridegroom story that totally ruined my day when I read about it.

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    Wait, so it's sufficient to prove that the proffered reason might be pretextual? That's all? Because that seems...counter to our usual legal philosophy in this country. Am I misunderstanding you?

    To avoid summary judgment, yes. That it was a pretext would need to be shown by a preponderance of the evidence to prevail at trial.

    Ah, that makes more sense. Carry on.

    Why is avoiding summary judgment so important? Are judges expected to give smaller awards than juries?

    if you lose summary judgment it's basically a ruling you didn't even have enough to bring a claim. like it's not enough to even get to a jury. the "awards" at that point are attorney costs and the time and effort spent.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    Wait, so it's sufficient to prove that the proffered reason might be pretextual? That's all? Because that seems...counter to our usual legal philosophy in this country. Am I misunderstanding you?

    To avoid summary judgment, yes. That it was a pretext would need to be shown by a preponderance of the evidence to prevail at trial.

    Ah, that makes more sense. Carry on.

    Why is avoiding summary judgment so important? Are judges expected to give smaller awards than juries?

    When the defendant moves for summary judgement the implication is that the judgement would be "No violation, everybody go home."

  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    I was just coming here to post about that. He had medical power of attorney and the hospital just didn't even bother to confirm it, and now he's got a restraining order so he can't visit at all.

    Its just absolutely fucking disgusting and reminds me of that Thomas Bridegroom story that totally ruined my day when I read about it.

    I'm sure there's more to the story. Maybe he was being a raging dick and is using the gay card to try and defend himself, but I find I still don't care. They were married (or civil unioned, or whatever). I don't give a shit if Missouri doesn't recognize it. He had the correct legal paperwork, they need to fucking honor it.

    This shit needs to stop. For all we know, his sick partners family is making medical decisions for his partner that he has no say in.

    steam_sig.png
  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    It's always possible. But I mean, I can't blame him for making a scene. His partner was not conscious and he was shoved out of the picture when he's in a civil union and has all of the legal paperwork.

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    Reading it again, it makes me think he had the paperwork, but not with him.

    steam_sig.png
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    Reading it again, it makes me think he had the paperwork, but not with him.

    And if a straight couple didn't have their marriage license...they wouldn't need it anyway. So.

    MortiousEdith Upwards
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    It's 100% bullshit and I hope he gets a lawyer

    ArchMortiouslonelyahavaHacksawEdith UpwardsElldrenApothe0sisSquigieSCREECH OF THE FARGMan in the Mists
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    So It Goes wrote: »
    It's 100% bullshit and I hope he gets a lawyer

    I'm really curious how you keep treating somebody when you kick the person with power of attorney out. You're allowed to make some default assumptions about care decisions but if you're allowed to just tell the legally empowered decision maker to get the fuck out......

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • AtomikaAtomika technology is your dickfist Registered User regular
    Something about that story is odd, to the point where I'm not ready to pass judgment.

    The facility is a research facility and flatly denied any policy against same-sex partners' rights. And security doesn't usually forcibly remove anyone by handcuffs unless there's a damn good reason to. I've worked in hospitals for the last decade, and the only people I've ever seen forcibly removed were attacking the staff.

    Lovely
  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    Well Ross, if someone was told to leave and they refused to, wouldn't security have to physically try to remove them?

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Well Ross, if someone was told to leave and they refused to, wouldn't security have to physically try to remove them?

    Really the question is this: If two people are being yelling dicks to each other, which do you remove? I'd guess the hospital went with "Not family".

    The basis of that decision is going to cause them some issues.

  • AtomikaAtomika technology is your dickfist Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Well Ross, if someone was told to leave and they refused to, wouldn't security have to physically try to remove them?

    Maybe, but unlikely.

    I'm having trouble finding a reason where the hospital would take it to this length for no good reason. I'm just saying it smacks of there being more to the story. Of course if they're just horrible bigots, fuck them in the ear.

  • reVersereVerse Registered User regular
    I'm having trouble finding a reason where the hospital would take it to this length for no good reason.

    Bigotry is not based on reason.

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    I don't really need anyone to use the word "judge" when talking about LGBT rights, even if it's in a missive "Only God can judge" capacity, because it's horseshit coding that means that they're still being judgmental.

    If your options are between Sister Miriam Godwinson and someone who says "It's not my place to judge you so whatever, no oppression" and you get mad at the second person you're kind of ridiculous

    sig.png
  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    So, if he was in the room with his partner, and his partners blood relations were hating on him and telling him to get out and he just flat out refused, the Hospital staff would normally just shrug their shoulders and let him stay in there? I'm sincerely asking I'm not trying to be a smart ass or anything.

    I mean, if he just flat out refused to leave, and the family was saying "We want him out." How does that get resolved?

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    reVerse wrote: »
    I'm having trouble finding a reason where the hospital would take it to this length for no good reason.

    Bigotry is not based on reason.

    There's no proof this was just bigotry is the point.

    AtomikashrykeKwoaru
  • InfidelInfidel Heretic Registered User regular
    Yeah, it is super thin on details, but the primary seems to be the family of the man caused the issue. That's the fucked up bit, and I can understand that he probably was upset and stubborn when he is totally in the right, but something obviously happened to get him arrested.

    Shithead bigot family tries to block gay partner, gay partner explodes and refuses to leave as is right, but is the one I'd expect to be removed in that situation sadly. What are the staff supposed to do exactly? There are not enough details given to know whether the facility was unreasonable.

    OrokosPA.png
    Play D&D 4e? :: Check out Orokos and upload your Character Builder sheet! :: Orokos Dice Roller
    The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
    Lovely
  • Gigazombie CybermageGigazombie Cybermage Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Except that the partner had power of attorney, didn't he? They didn't have the right to force him away.

    steam_sig.png
  • NocrenNocren Lt Futz, Back in Action North CarolinaRegistered User regular
    Unfortunately, power of attorney doesn't mean "bedside vigil", it means that you're the one responsible for make that person's decisions in regards to their wishes.

    He technically doesn't have to be with his partner to use his powers.

    newSig.jpg
  • AtomikaAtomika technology is your dickfist Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    So, if he was in the room with his partner, and his partners blood relations were hating on him and telling him to get out and he just flat out refused, the Hospital staff would normally just shrug their shoulders and let him stay in there? I'm sincerely asking I'm not trying to be a smart ass or anything.

    I mean, if he just flat out refused to leave, and the family was saying "We want him out." How does that get resolved?

    If he's medical power of attorney, the family has to take a flying leap. He has to prove it, of course, but the hospital likely wouldn't force him out of the building while he was getting a copy of it.

    I just think something is fishy here.

  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Well Ross, if someone was told to leave and they refused to, wouldn't security have to physically try to remove them?

    Really the question is this: If two people are being yelling dicks to each other, which do you remove? I'd guess the hospital went with "Not family".

    The basis of that decision is going to cause them some issues.

    Which is part of the problem, since he was.

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    So, if he was in the room with his partner, and his partners blood relations were hating on him and telling him to get out and he just flat out refused, the Hospital staff would normally just shrug their shoulders and let him stay in there? I'm sincerely asking I'm not trying to be a smart ass or anything.

    I mean, if he just flat out refused to leave, and the family was saying "We want him out." How does that get resolved?

    You remove the family that doesn't have the legal right to make medical decisions for the patient.

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • InfidelInfidel Heretic Registered User regular
    Yeah, but they had other family saying he didn't belong there and he (reasonably) didn't have papers verifying his status on him?

    OrokosPA.png
    Play D&D 4e? :: Check out Orokos and upload your Character Builder sheet! :: Orokos Dice Roller
    The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
  • AtomikaAtomika technology is your dickfist Registered User regular
    Female UFC fighter Rhonda Rousey comes out against Fallon Fox, comes out in support of transphobia.
    Rousey heavily criticized Fox for competing in the women's division, stating that she could "try hormones" and "chop her pecker off," but would still have "the same bone structure a man has."


    In fairness, the rest of the article paints Rousey as someone who is largely concerned for the safety of ciswomen in MMA, which is a fair point, considering that Fox has seriously injured several of her opponents.

  • AtomikaAtomika technology is your dickfist Registered User regular
    Infidel wrote: »
    Yeah, but they had other family saying he didn't belong there and he (reasonably) didn't have papers verifying his status on him?

    Regardless, the hospital isn't going to forcibly remove anyone unless they're causing a security problem. So, as I've said, there's probably more to this story. I'm not saying bigotry wasn't involved, but it's very likely not as simple as "hospital uses excessive force to apply bigotry."

  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Female UFC fighter Rhonda Rousey comes out against Fallon Fox, comes out in support of transphobia.
    Rousey heavily criticized Fox for competing in the women's division, stating that she could "try hormones" and "chop her pecker off," but would still have "the same bone structure a man has."


    In fairness, the rest of the article paints Rousey as someone who is largely concerned for the safety of ciswomen in MMA, which is a fair point, considering that Fox has seriously injured several of her opponents.

    Injuries? In MMA? I'm shocked.

    Mortious
  • AtomikaAtomika technology is your dickfist Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    Female UFC fighter Rhonda Rousey comes out against Fallon Fox, comes out in support of transphobia.
    Rousey heavily criticized Fox for competing in the women's division, stating that she could "try hormones" and "chop her pecker off," but would still have "the same bone structure a man has."


    In fairness, the rest of the article paints Rousey as someone who is largely concerned for the safety of ciswomen in MMA, which is a fair point, considering that Fox has seriously injured several of her opponents.

    Injuries? In MMA? I'm shocked.

    Like, badly injured them, quickly, in ways beyond normal injury, and without intent to injure.

    I know, I know, it could always be an outlier. But it's not good for the parity argument when the only transwoman fighter is known for being an exceptionally brutal and damaging opponent.

    Mild Confusion
  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    Female UFC fighter Rhonda Rousey comes out against Fallon Fox, comes out in support of transphobia.
    Rousey heavily criticized Fox for competing in the women's division, stating that she could "try hormones" and "chop her pecker off," but would still have "the same bone structure a man has."


    In fairness, the rest of the article paints Rousey as someone who is largely concerned for the safety of ciswomen in MMA, which is a fair point, considering that Fox has seriously injured several of her opponents.

    Injuries? In MMA? I'm shocked.

    Like, badly injured them, quickly, in ways beyond normal injury, and without intent to injure.

    I know, I know, it could always be an outlier. But it's not good for the parity argument when the only transwoman fighter is known for being an exceptionally brutal and damaging opponent.

    Well that's certainly interesting. Unfortunately her concerns are somewhat undermined by shit like "It was a decision she made" and "chop her pecker off" like it's that simple and frivolous. If you think that transwomen have an unfair advantage then the proper statement is transwomen have an unfair advantage and you can leave the derogatory remarks out of it.

    AtomikaShivahnMortiousDelzhandFyndirEdith UpwardsJihadJesusElldrenMan in the Mists
  • MuddypawsMuddypaws Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    Tenek wrote: »
    Female UFC fighter Rhonda Rousey comes out against Fallon Fox, comes out in support of transphobia.
    Rousey heavily criticized Fox for competing in the women's division, stating that she could "try hormones" and "chop her pecker off," but would still have "the same bone structure a man has."


    In fairness, the rest of the article paints Rousey as someone who is largely concerned for the safety of ciswomen in MMA, which is a fair point, considering that Fox has seriously injured several of her opponents.

    Injuries? In MMA? I'm shocked.

    Like, badly injured them, quickly, in ways beyond normal injury, and without intent to injure.

    I know, I know, it could always be an outlier. But it's not good for the parity argument when the only transwoman fighter is known for being an exceptionally brutal and damaging opponent.

    Do you have links to actual injuries? Geniunely curious. Is Fox really an "exceptionally brutal" opponent within MMA?

    Edit. This link, if accurate, seems to suggest she has fought twice in minor competitions and never against anyone who has won a previoous bout. Not exactly setting the MMA world alight.
    Fox is a thirty-seven year old fighter competing in a small-time, regional promotion that even most hardcore MMA fans wouldn’t recognize. She is 2-0 in her professional career, but has yet to fight an opponent who has actually won a professional bout. She has not been offered a contract by the UFC, Invicta, or Bellator. This is all to say that she hasn’t accomplished anything yet that justifies the non-stop media attention that she has received for the past month.

    cagepotato.com/the-unsupportable-opinion-why-are-we-still-talking-about-fallon-fox/

    Muddypaws on
  • AtomikaAtomika technology is your dickfist Registered User regular
    Muddypaws wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Female UFC fighter Rhonda Rousey comes out against Fallon Fox, comes out in support of transphobia.
    Rousey heavily criticized Fox for competing in the women's division, stating that she could "try hormones" and "chop her pecker off," but would still have "the same bone structure a man has."


    In fairness, the rest of the article paints Rousey as someone who is largely concerned for the safety of ciswomen in MMA, which is a fair point, considering that Fox has seriously injured several of her opponents.

    Injuries? In MMA? I'm shocked.

    Like, badly injured them, quickly, in ways beyond normal injury, and without intent to injure.

    I know, I know, it could always be an outlier. But it's not good for the parity argument when the only transwoman fighter is known for being an exceptionally brutal and damaging opponent.

    Do you have links to actual injuries? Geniunely curious. Is Fox really an "exceptionally brutal" opponent within MMA?

    She's had several fights that lasted less than a minute or two with first-round knockouts or tapouts.

    http://www.sherdog.com/blog/Video-Transgender-Fighter-Fallon-Fox-Scores-KO-Wants-Shot-in-UFC-50715


    She doesn't appear to be a mean-spirited fighter, and in interviews she comes off as genuinely sanguine and pleasant.

    But she's a very dominating fighter, and she's the only transgender fighter, and those two conditions combine for controversy.

  • MuddypawsMuddypaws Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    This might be a factor in her two victories so far rather than exceptional brutality and her trans related strength?
    ...but has yet to fight an opponent who has actually won a professional bout

    Muddypaws on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Brian Burke is a hugely influential guy in NHL circles, and his son was gay and killed in a car accident a few years ago. He's the driving force behind most of that.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    Female UFC fighter Rhonda Rousey comes out against Fallon Fox, comes out in support of transphobia.
    Rousey heavily criticized Fox for competing in the women's division, stating that she could "try hormones" and "chop her pecker off," but would still have "the same bone structure a man has."


    In fairness, the rest of the article paints Rousey as someone who is largely concerned for the safety of ciswomen in MMA, which is a fair point, considering that Fox has seriously injured several of her opponents.

    I find this post amusing since Rousey is well known for breaking an opponent's arm.

    Every one of her fights has ended in an armbar win for her.

    I guess she's a man?

    So It Goes on
    AtomikaQuidCindersEdith UpwardsElldren
  • Sweeney TomSweeney Tom Registered User regular
    Add Wisconsin's Ron Kind and Indiana's Pete Visclosky (both Dems) to the list of Congressmen endorsing marriage equality.

    Less than two dozen House Dems remain unopposed to or undecided on marriage equality.

    AtomikalonelyahavaEdith UpwardsElldrenSquigie
Sign In or Register to comment.