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?
0
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
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.
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
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.
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.
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."
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.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
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.
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......
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
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
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?
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.
Except that the partner had power of attorney, didn't he? They didn't have the right to force him away.
0
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
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.
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
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.
0
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
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."
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.
+1
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
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.
Posts
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.
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.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Its just absolutely fucking disgusting and reminds me of that Thomas Bridegroom story that totally ruined my day when I read about it.
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.
When the defendant moves for summary judgement the implication is that the judgement would be "No violation, everybody go home."
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.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
And if a straight couple didn't have their marriage license...they wouldn't need it anyway. So.
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......
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.
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.
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.
Bigotry is not based on reason.
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
I mean, if he just flat out refused to leave, and the family was saying "We want him out." How does that get resolved?
There's no proof this was just bigotry is the point.
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.
He technically doesn't have to be with his partner to use his powers.
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.
Which is part of the problem, since he was.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
You remove the family that doesn't have the legal right to make medical decisions for the patient.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
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.
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."
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.
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.
cagepotato.com/the-unsupportable-opinion-why-are-we-still-talking-about-fallon-fox/
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.
Steam
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?
Less than two dozen House Dems remain unopposed to or undecided on marriage equality.
Steam