This case may get thrown out who knows but the message is sent to the powers that be or to any individuals who may want inflict their ways society should or should not conduct themselves. Basically discrimination is still a suitable offense right? Sad case that this kind of behavior towards people STILL exists in America today.
Peace
well ... therein lies the rub ... it appears too many things are sue-worthy ...
at the end of the day - this was one JP abusing his power to support his prejudices vs. an entire organization or entity ... sadly, discrimination occurs on a daily basis around the world and ultimately will not change unless we educate people ... i find lawsuits like this excessive and ultimately counter to progress ...
the JP violated this couple's right to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness because his personal biases got in the way. i am pretty certain that there is no established legal precedent on the books that states that it is ok to discriminate against a couple and deny them the right to enter into the legal agreement that is marriage based on race. there is no legal precedent that states whites must marry whites, blacks marry blacks, etc. . who knows how many people that this JP denied marriage due to racism and his personal opinions? this could very well become a class action lawsuit if he denied a hundred couples this right. he was in office 20 something years, if he denied 4 couples a year over 25 years, then that is 100 couples. i think this could get pretty ugly, and this couple will take him to the cleaners. but then again it is the south, and racism is pretty much the norm in a lot of states down there so if they can't get a sympathetic jury then they might not get any damages.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
the JP violated this couple's right to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness because his personal biases got in the way. i am pretty certain that there is no established legal precedent on the books that states that it is ok to discriminate against a couple and deny them the right to enter into the legal agreement that is marriage based on race. there is no legal precedent that states whites must marry whites, blacks marry blacks, etc. . who knows how many people that this JP denied marriage due to racism and his personal opinions? this could very well become a class action lawsuit if he denied a hundred couples this right. he was in office 20 something years, if he denied 4 couples a year over 25 years, then that is 100 couples. i think this could get pretty ugly, and this couple will take him to the cleaners. but then again it is the south, and racism is pretty much the norm in a lot of states down there so if they can't get a sympathetic jury then they might not get any damages.
they were denied for 1 day or however long it was to find another ... they were able to marry without hassle - they just had to use someone else ... again - i'm not condoning this behaviour ... simply that the JP has now resigned - what is suing doing?
the JP violated this couple's right to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness because his personal biases got in the way. i am pretty certain that there is no established legal precedent on the books that states that it is ok to discriminate against a couple and deny them the right to enter into the legal agreement that is marriage based on race. there is no legal precedent that states whites must marry whites, blacks marry blacks, etc. . who knows how many people that this JP denied marriage due to racism and his personal opinions? this could very well become a class action lawsuit if he denied a hundred couples this right. he was in office 20 something years, if he denied 4 couples a year over 25 years, then that is 100 couples. i think this could get pretty ugly, and this couple will take him to the cleaners. but then again it is the south, and racism is pretty much the norm in a lot of states down there so if they can't get a sympathetic jury then they might not get any damages.
they were denied for 1 day or however long it was to find another ... they were able to marry without hassle - they just had to use someone else ... again - i'm not condoning this behaviour ... simply that the JP has now resigned - what is suing doing?
how the hell do i know what suing is doing? i am not them and nobody here can get into their heads and figure it out. i would think it would be them establishing a legal precedent to be used in all future discrimination cases to make sure that this does not happen again anywhere, in louisiana or anywhere in the US. and if it were me i would take that bastard for everything he has. if he discriminates against me and my family and stands in the way of me getting married because he does not like the color of my skin, he is going to pay. simple as that. it is 2009 and this pre 1965 bullshit does not fly anymore. even in the south. how can any of these "freedom loving" folks on here be ok with this infringement on this couple's freedoms?
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
the JP violated this couple's right to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness because his personal biases got in the way. i am pretty certain that there is no established legal precedent on the books that states that it is ok to discriminate against a couple and deny them the right to enter into the legal agreement that is marriage based on race. there is no legal precedent that states whites must marry whites, blacks marry blacks, etc. . who knows how many people that this JP denied marriage due to racism and his personal opinions? this could very well become a class action lawsuit if he denied a hundred couples this right. he was in office 20 something years, if he denied 4 couples a year over 25 years, then that is 100 couples. i think this could get pretty ugly, and this couple will take him to the cleaners. but then again it is the south, and racism is pretty much the norm in a lot of states down there so if they can't get a sympathetic jury then they might not get any damages.
they were denied for 1 day or however long it was to find another ... they were able to marry without hassle - they just had to use someone else ... again - i'm not condoning this behaviour ... simply that the JP has now resigned - what is suing doing?
how the hell do i know what suing is doing? i am not them and nobody here can get into their heads and figure it out. i would think it would be them establishing a legal precedent to be used in all future discrimination cases to make sure that this does not happen again anywhere, in louisiana or anywhere in the US. and if it were me i would take that bastard for everything he has. if he discriminates against me and my family and stands in the way of me getting married because he does not like the color of my skin, he is going to pay. simple as that. it is 2009 and this pre 1965 bullshit does not fly anymore. even in the south. how can any of these "freedom loving" folks on here be ok with this infringement on this couple's freedoms?
if setting a legal precedent is all they really want, they'd sue him for a dollar plus lawyer fees. I don't know what amount they are suing for, but I bet it ain't peanuts.
I just don't get the relation between someone pissing me off and me therefore gaining the right to ruin his life and taking "the bastard for everything he has", as you put it. What does that accomplish? That has nothing to do with legal precedent. It's greed. If you want anything that's black and white in this discussion, it's that.
Monetary settlements are meant for people missing work, hospital expenses, as a result of negligence and whathaveyou. Spending an extra 20 minutes finding another JP to marry you does not constitute lottery-esque windfalls.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
johnny i am going to just disagree with you and be done with it. you are still defending this douchebag justice of the peace andi am finished debating you on this topic. you have to have the last word so you can have it. maybe they do things differently in canada, but the guy is a racist and he will pay the penalty and hopefully some hefty damages to this couple. the only way to make him learn a lesson for his discrimination is to hit him where it hurts. his wallet.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
how the hell do i know what suing is doing? i am not them and nobody here can get into their heads and figure it out. i would think it would be them establishing a legal precedent to be used in all future discrimination cases to make sure that this does not happen again anywhere, in louisiana or anywhere in the US. and if it were me i would take that bastard for everything he has. if he discriminates against me and my family and stands in the way of me getting married because he does not like the color of my skin, he is going to pay. simple as that. it is 2009 and this pre 1965 bullshit does not fly anymore. even in the south. how can any of these "freedom loving" folks on here be ok with this infringement on this couple's freedoms?
first of all - where did i say i was ok with this JP's action!?? NO WHERE ... in fact, knowing that some would not actually read what i wrote - i specifically re-iterated that i didn't condone this JP's action ...
if you think that having to find another JP caused so much hardship that he should be sued for all his worth ... i suppose that explains why ambulance chasing lawyers make a killing in the US ... let's show some perspective here ... are interacial marriages being denied all the time there or anywhere in the US? ... is it so rampant that this couple sees fit to launch a civil suit and think they are gonna fix it?
i can guarantee you that on a daily basis - someone is being discriminated against this minute ... maybe you're right ... maybe everyone should launch a civil suit every time ... is that gonna fix ignorance?
the JP violated this couple's right to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness because his personal biases got in the way. i am pretty certain that there is no established legal precedent on the books that states that it is ok to discriminate against a couple and deny them the right to enter into the legal agreement that is marriage based on race. there is no legal precedent that states whites must marry whites, blacks marry blacks, etc. . who knows how many people that this JP denied marriage due to racism and his personal opinions? this could very well become a class action lawsuit if he denied a hundred couples this right. he was in office 20 something years, if he denied 4 couples a year over 25 years, then that is 100 couples. i think this could get pretty ugly, and this couple will take him to the cleaners. but then again it is the south, and racism is pretty much the norm in a lot of states down there so if they can't get a sympathetic jury then they might not get any damages.
they were denied for 1 day or however long it was to find another ... they were able to marry without hassle - they just had to use someone else ... again - i'm not condoning this behaviour ... simply that the JP has now resigned - what is suing doing?
teaching him a lesson?
i sped the other day and the cop pulled me over. he started trying to write me a ticket but i told him that was stupid becos i clearly wasn't speeding anymore. he didn't buy it.
johnny i am going to just disagree with you and be done with it. you are still defending this douchebag justice of the peace andi am finished debating you on this topic. you have to have the last word so you can have it. maybe they do things differently in canada, but the guy is a racist and he will pay the penalty and hopefully some hefty damages to this couple. the only way to make him learn a lesson for his discrimination is to hit him where it hurts. his wallet.
I am not defending him, gimme. Read my post. I said it was good he resigned. My post was all about how it makes no sense to be asking for money in this situation. And I don't need the last word. Jesus, man, you seem to think I'm here to debate you, when I'm debating the ISSUE. Why can't you get that?
It has nothing to do with the last word. If I have something to say, I say it. You know, LIKE YOU DO. Quit your crying.
You continued this thread after you said you were done with it. I responded to the article you posted, NOT YOU, but then you feel the need to chime in on me when I say something, then when I respond to you, you childishly turn around and say you won't respond to me anymore. I don't give a shit if you do or not. Ignore me if you like, because it's obvious you just can't deal with anyone that doesn't agree with your point of view. It's called a discussion, which is a free exchange of ideas, not a "let's listen to how right gimmesometruth is this time". :roll:
I agreed he was a racist. Let it go. This is odd. But, since you seem to think I'm so hellbent on having the last word, then fine, I'll take it.
Word.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
johnny i am going to just disagree with you and be done with it. you are still defending this douchebag justice of the peace andi am finished debating you on this topic. you have to have the last word so you can have it. maybe they do things differently in canada, but the guy is a racist and he will pay the penalty and hopefully some hefty damages to this couple. the only way to make him learn a lesson for his discrimination is to hit him where it hurts. his wallet.
AND ONE LAST TIME. I NEVER DEFENDED THIS IDIOT. I MERELY DON'T JUDGE AS QUICKLY AS YOU OBVIOUSLY DO. WHICH MAKES YOU A HYPOCRITE IN THIS SITUATION.
I wanted to know all of the facts before I jumped on the racism bandwagon.
Post edited by Hugh Freaking Dillon on
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
i sped the other day and the cop pulled me over. he started trying to write me a ticket but i told him that was stupid becos i clearly wasn't speeding anymore. he didn't buy it.
by that token - everyone who speeds should get sued ... the JP has resigned - that's his "ticket" ...
i sped the other day and the cop pulled me over. he started trying to write me a ticket but i told him that was stupid becos i clearly wasn't speeding anymore. he didn't buy it.
by that token - everyone who speeds should get sued ... the JP has resigned - that's his "ticket" ...
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
AND ONE LAST TIME. I NEVER DEFENDED THIS IDIOT. I MERELY DON'T JUDGE AS QUICKLY AS YOU OBVIOUSLY DO. WHICH MAKES YOU A HYPOCRITE IN THIS SITUATION.
I wanted to know all of the facts before I jumped on the "racism" bandwagon, which you not only ride, but seem to drive.
you said above that you never defended him. you defended him plenty. i don't care what you have said in your posts since then but don't say you didn't defend him when you clearly did. of course you could always admit you did initially defend him, and then researched the facts and decided you were wrong. that would work. just a thought of course.
I'm about to get crucified, but I'll state my peace anyway. But I don't see how this guy can be labelled a racist. He doesn't think that races should mix. I disagree with him, but I don't think he is a racist. That's a bit strong of a word.
Look at the definition and tell me what he did was racism. What he did was WRONG, but it wasn't racism. Sorry folks, but you are misdefining what racism is.
then we had a little waah in the middle of it all..
and one last thing. I'm actually trying to have a civilized discussion, and some of you people are turning it into a schoolyard insult-fest. What gives? I don't agree with you so you have to resort to childish discrediting attempts at the person with this garbage?
It's disgusting. :roll:
I'm done with this thread. it's obvious some of you people can't have an adult conversation. And don't resort to the cliche "aw, he realizes he lost the argument, so he's leaving" crap. It's been said a thousand times before, and it's baseless, and most always uttered by the most immature.
Now, to get back to the topic, let me give you a hypothetical:
A man owns two purebred dogs. He loves both dogs equally. Yet he doesn't want them to breed together, because he believes that they should stay within their breed. Is this man a breedist ( )? No, he wants both his dogs to breed, just not together. Does this mean he is disrespecting these dogs? Nope, he's looking out for what he believes is best for each of their future families. Do I agree with this dog-lover? Nope, because I could care less about breeds of dogs. And I think dogs should be able to f*** whoever they want!
This man acted outside of the law. He should be fired. But he is not racist with the facts that we know as reported by the media.
of course you could always admit you did initially defend him, and then researched the facts and decided you were wrong.
I still say I didn't defend him. I defended his right to his opinion, based on what I thought I knew at the time. But fine, we'll go your route so we can stop this nonsense.
I INITIALLY DEFENDED HIM AND THEN RESEARCHED AND ADMITTED I WAS WRONG. (can we please move on now to the matter at hand?)
to me (and to everone but you and gimme), that part of the discussion is dead. you people keep bringing it up when it was resolved about 4 pages ago. now we're talking about the right to sue someone for money they do/don't deserve.
I'm NOT defending this guy. I'm against monetary compensation of ANY KIND IN ANY SITUATION unless there was some tangible monies lost by the plaintiff. To me it's that black and freakin' white.
What money did these people lose? Did they miss work? Did they have hospital bills? NOPE.
They didn't lose money. They shouldn't get money. Simple. You can't financially quantify a feeling being hurt.
It IS that simple.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
i sped the other day and the cop pulled me over. he started trying to write me a ticket but i told him that was stupid becos i clearly wasn't speeding anymore. he didn't buy it.
by that token - everyone who speeds should get sued ... the JP has resigned - that's his "ticket" ...
no. we get points on our license which affect our driving privileges and insurance rates, which is a long term punishment/consequences akin to his resignation. then we pay the fee on top of that, and so can he.
I know I probably don't tell you this enough.... but sometimes inmytree, I really don't like or appreciate you.
i've spent quite a bit of time in this thead, and as the thread starter, i blame you!
no. we get points on our license which affect our driving privileges and insurance rates, which is a long term punishment/consequences akin to his resignation. then we pay the fee on top of that, and so can he.
no. we get points on our license which affect our driving privileges and insurance rates, which is a long term punishment/consequences akin to his resignation. then we pay the fee on top of that, and so can he.
but the jury doesn't decide what that fine is when you sped ... it's set for the most part ... what if i told you it would cost you $50,000 for your speeding ticket ... is that reasonable?
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,043
This case may get thrown out who knows but the message is sent to the powers that be or to any individuals who may want inflict their ways society should or should not conduct themselves. Basically discrimination is still a suitable offense right? Sad case that this kind of behavior towards people STILL exists in America today.
Peace
well ... therein lies the rub ... it appears too many things are sue-worthy ...
at the end of the day - this was one JP abusing his power to support his prejudices vs. an entire organization or entity ... sadly, discrimination occurs on a daily basis around the world and ultimately will not change unless we educate people ... i find lawsuits like this excessive and ultimately counter to progress ...
the JP violated this couple's right to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness because his personal biases got in the way. i am pretty certain that there is no established legal precedent on the books that states that it is ok to discriminate against a couple and deny them the right to enter into the legal agreement that is marriage based on race. there is no legal precedent that states whites must marry whites, blacks marry blacks, etc. . who knows how many people that this JP denied marriage due to racism and his personal opinions? this could very well become a class action lawsuit if he denied a hundred couples this right. he was in office 20 something years, if he denied 4 couples a year over 25 years, then that is 100 couples. i think this could get pretty ugly, and this couple will take him to the cleaners. but then again it is the south, and racism is pretty much the norm in a lot of states down there so if they can't get a sympathetic jury then they might not get any damages.
Maybe thats why the couple picked him to begin with? Knowing they wouldbe denied by him? He stated he refered couples to other JP's who would perform the ceremony, so how is it exactly he's denying them of anything?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
but the jury doesn't decide what that fine is when you sped ... it's set for the most part ... what if i told you it would cost you $50,000 for your speeding ticket ... is that reasonable?
probably not. but if the jury decides on something that is totally unreasonable, it will be overturned on appeal. and there are guidelines now in most jurisdictions that limit how much can be given out as punitive damages in tort claims like this. kinda like how a cop can decide whether or not he wants to just get you for speeding, or add a ticket for the busted tail light, missing seat belt, etc.
but the jury doesn't decide what that fine is when you sped ... it's set for the most part ... what if i told you it would cost you $50,000 for your speeding ticket ... is that reasonable?
probably not. but if the jury decides on something that is totally unreasonable, it will be overturned on appeal. and there are guidelines now in most jurisdictions that limit how much can be given out as punitive damages in tort claims like this. kinda like how a cop can decide whether or not he wants to just get you for speeding, or add a ticket for the busted tail light, missing seat belt, etc.
probably not. but if the jury decides on something that is totally unreasonable, it will be overturned on appeal. and there are guidelines now in most jurisdictions that limit how much can be given out as punitive damages in tort claims like this. kinda like how a cop can decide whether or not he wants to just get you for speeding, or add a ticket for the busted tail light, missing seat belt, etc.
well ... reasonable is subjective i suppose ...
of course it's subjective. which is why i'm not sure what your point is. if this is nothing more than fishing for cash, the case will get tossed. if there's something to it, it will go to a jury. there's a lot more need for discretion in this sort of thing. it's easy to have a flat fee for a speeding ticket becos it's the same offense for everyone. with a case like this, it depends on the hardship to the plaintiffs, the malice of the defendant, how much is needed to make it punitive without devestating, etc. all i'm saying is that just becos the problem has stopped doesn't mean the guy should be off the hook. there are a lot of good reasons to pursue some sort of punishment... to deter him or deter others from taking on this sort of responsibility and thinking they won't be held accountable if they deny our citizens their rights in their capacity as magistrate.
Maybe thats why the couple picked him to begin with? Knowing they wouldbe denied by him? He stated he refered couples to other JP's who would perform the ceremony, so how is it exactly he's denying them of anything?
that's entirely possible that they did that, thinking ahead of a civil lawsuit (kinda doubtful, but anything's possible), but in essence, it would be the same if you were in line at the grocery store, and one clerk said "I'm sorry, I don't serve Africans, but you can go see the clerk to my left, as they do".
maybe he wasn't denying them anything per se, but it's still pretty offensive.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
probably not. but if the jury decides on something that is totally unreasonable, it will be overturned on appeal. and there are guidelines now in most jurisdictions that limit how much can be given out as punitive damages in tort claims like this. kinda like how a cop can decide whether or not he wants to just get you for speeding, or add a ticket for the busted tail light, missing seat belt, etc.
well ... reasonable is subjective i suppose ...
of course it's subjective. which is why i'm not sure what your point is. if this is nothing more than fishing for cash, the case will get tossed. if there's something to it, it will go to a jury. there's a lot more need for discretion in this sort of thing. it's easy to have a flat fee for a speeding ticket becos it's the same offense for everyone. with a case like this, it depends on the hardship to the plaintiffs, the malice of the defendant, how much is needed to make it punitive without devestating, etc. all i'm saying is that just becos the problem has stopped doesn't mean the guy should be off the hook. there are a lot of good reasons to pursue some sort of punishment... to deter him or deter others from taking on this sort of responsibility and thinking they won't be held accountable if they deny our citizens their rights in their capacity as magistrate.
I totally understand your point and the ideals behind the deterrence of crimes by way of punitive punishment, however, I think maybe you put a little too much faith in the justice system. You say "if it's nothing more than fishing for cash, the case will get tossed". There are too many cases to count where people get a ridiculous amount of money for ridiculous reasons. The most famous, of course, is the aforementioned McDonald's coffee fiasco. $3 million because that person spilled coffee on themselves? Outrageous.
This could quite literally ruin this guy's entire life, which is not reasonable considering the long-term ramifications for the victims are pretty well non-existent.
I think him resigning is being held accountable, no?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
of course it's subjective. which is why i'm not sure what your point is. if this is nothing more than fishing for cash, the case will get tossed. if there's something to it, it will go to a jury. there's a lot more need for discretion in this sort of thing. it's easy to have a flat fee for a speeding ticket becos it's the same offense for everyone. with a case like this, it depends on the hardship to the plaintiffs, the malice of the defendant, how much is needed to make it punitive without devestating, etc. all i'm saying is that just becos the problem has stopped doesn't mean the guy should be off the hook. there are a lot of good reasons to pursue some sort of punishment... to deter him or deter others from taking on this sort of responsibility and thinking they won't be held accountable if they deny our citizens their rights in their capacity as magistrate.
my point is that it reeks of opportunism and greed and that this couple is taking advantage of a situation ... i've not heard of things getting tossed as i've read about some crazy settlements in the US ... in my opinion - they encountered someone with prejudice, something that happens to many all the time ... although it isn't right - i feel that they are going to sue for some (in my opinion) unreasonable amount ... something that ultimately is subjective ... obviously - i'm guessing just on this board the range of what is considered reasonable would be wide ranging
I know I probably don't tell you this enough.... but sometimes inmytree, I really don't like or appreciate you.
i've spent quite a bit of time in this thead, and as the thread starter, i blame you!
he he he....
seriously, now some are attempting to draw a parallel between the JoP actions and a speeding ticket....and that these folks should not sue...even though suing is within their rights....
of course it's subjective. which is why i'm not sure what your point is. if this is nothing more than fishing for cash, the case will get tossed. if there's something to it, it will go to a jury. there's a lot more need for discretion in this sort of thing. it's easy to have a flat fee for a speeding ticket becos it's the same offense for everyone. with a case like this, it depends on the hardship to the plaintiffs, the malice of the defendant, how much is needed to make it punitive without devestating, etc. all i'm saying is that just becos the problem has stopped doesn't mean the guy should be off the hook. there are a lot of good reasons to pursue some sort of punishment... to deter him or deter others from taking on this sort of responsibility and thinking they won't be held accountable if they deny our citizens their rights in their capacity as magistrate.
my point is that it reeks of opportunism and greed and that this couple is taking advantage of a situation ... i've not heard of things getting tossed as i've read about some crazy settlements in the US ... in my opinion - they encountered someone with prejudice, something that happens to many all the time ... although it isn't right - i feel that they are going to sue for some (in my opinion) unreasonable amount ... something that ultimately is subjective ... obviously - i'm guessing just on this board the range of what is considered reasonable would be wide ranging
of course you haven't. who's going to read about the thousands of cases that get tossed every day based on the opportunism you speak of? nobody would read that, so it doesn't get published. 1000 cases get tossed before anyone even gets a lawyer, but the only article you'll see is the one every 2-3 years where some slick lawyer got a sympathetic client and made a fortune on behalf of a dumb jury. if you truly believe that is the norm here... i don't know what to tell you.
Maybe thats why the couple picked him to begin with? Knowing they wouldbe denied by him? He stated he refered couples to other JP's who would perform the ceremony, so how is it exactly he's denying them of anything?
that's entirely possible that they did that, thinking ahead of a civil lawsuit (kinda doubtful, but anything's possible), but in essence, it would be the same if you were in line at the grocery store, and one clerk said "I'm sorry, I don't serve Africans, but you can go see the clerk to my left, as they do".
maybe he wasn't denying them anything per se, but it's still pretty offensive.
there's a difference between private actors and state officials. private actors get far more leeway. even so, they cannot discriminate in sales contracts. so they'd be getting slapped with a lawsuit too.
I totally understand your point and the ideals behind the deterrence of crimes by way of punitive punishment, however, I think maybe you put a little too much faith in the justice system. You say "if it's nothing more than fishing for cash, the case will get tossed". There are too many cases to count where people get a ridiculous amount of money for ridiculous reasons. The most famous, of course, is the aforementioned McDonald's coffee fiasco. $3 million because that person spilled coffee on themselves? Outrageous.
This could quite literally ruin this guy's entire life, which is not reasonable considering the long-term ramifications for the victims are pretty well non-existent.
I think him resigning is being held accountable, no?
it's a start. but like i said, there's value in teaching a lesson and sending a message. he clearly hasn't learned anything and therin is the problem. and we need to let other people know this is unacceptable.
i rather doubt it's going to come anywhere near ruining his life, and if it does, sorry, im not getting all misty-eyed becos some outdated racist went broke for being a douchebag.
Comments
the JP violated this couple's right to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness because his personal biases got in the way. i am pretty certain that there is no established legal precedent on the books that states that it is ok to discriminate against a couple and deny them the right to enter into the legal agreement that is marriage based on race. there is no legal precedent that states whites must marry whites, blacks marry blacks, etc. . who knows how many people that this JP denied marriage due to racism and his personal opinions? this could very well become a class action lawsuit if he denied a hundred couples this right. he was in office 20 something years, if he denied 4 couples a year over 25 years, then that is 100 couples. i think this could get pretty ugly, and this couple will take him to the cleaners. but then again it is the south, and racism is pretty much the norm in a lot of states down there so if they can't get a sympathetic jury then they might not get any damages.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
they were denied for 1 day or however long it was to find another ... they were able to marry without hassle - they just had to use someone else ... again - i'm not condoning this behaviour ... simply that the JP has now resigned - what is suing doing?
how the hell do i know what suing is doing? i am not them and nobody here can get into their heads and figure it out. i would think it would be them establishing a legal precedent to be used in all future discrimination cases to make sure that this does not happen again anywhere, in louisiana or anywhere in the US. and if it were me i would take that bastard for everything he has. if he discriminates against me and my family and stands in the way of me getting married because he does not like the color of my skin, he is going to pay. simple as that. it is 2009 and this pre 1965 bullshit does not fly anymore. even in the south. how can any of these "freedom loving" folks on here be ok with this infringement on this couple's freedoms?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
if setting a legal precedent is all they really want, they'd sue him for a dollar plus lawyer fees. I don't know what amount they are suing for, but I bet it ain't peanuts.
I just don't get the relation between someone pissing me off and me therefore gaining the right to ruin his life and taking "the bastard for everything he has", as you put it. What does that accomplish? That has nothing to do with legal precedent. It's greed. If you want anything that's black and white in this discussion, it's that.
Monetary settlements are meant for people missing work, hospital expenses, as a result of negligence and whathaveyou. Spending an extra 20 minutes finding another JP to marry you does not constitute lottery-esque windfalls.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
first of all - where did i say i was ok with this JP's action!?? NO WHERE ... in fact, knowing that some would not actually read what i wrote - i specifically re-iterated that i didn't condone this JP's action ...
if you think that having to find another JP caused so much hardship that he should be sued for all his worth ... i suppose that explains why ambulance chasing lawyers make a killing in the US ... let's show some perspective here ... are interacial marriages being denied all the time there or anywhere in the US? ... is it so rampant that this couple sees fit to launch a civil suit and think they are gonna fix it?
i can guarantee you that on a daily basis - someone is being discriminated against this minute ... maybe you're right ... maybe everyone should launch a civil suit every time ... is that gonna fix ignorance?
teaching him a lesson?
i sped the other day and the cop pulled me over. he started trying to write me a ticket but i told him that was stupid becos i clearly wasn't speeding anymore. he didn't buy it.
I am not defending him, gimme. Read my post. I said it was good he resigned. My post was all about how it makes no sense to be asking for money in this situation. And I don't need the last word. Jesus, man, you seem to think I'm here to debate you, when I'm debating the ISSUE. Why can't you get that?
It has nothing to do with the last word. If I have something to say, I say it. You know, LIKE YOU DO. Quit your crying.
You continued this thread after you said you were done with it. I responded to the article you posted, NOT YOU, but then you feel the need to chime in on me when I say something, then when I respond to you, you childishly turn around and say you won't respond to me anymore. I don't give a shit if you do or not. Ignore me if you like, because it's obvious you just can't deal with anyone that doesn't agree with your point of view. It's called a discussion, which is a free exchange of ideas, not a "let's listen to how right gimmesometruth is this time". :roll:
I agreed he was a racist. Let it go. This is odd. But, since you seem to think I'm so hellbent on having the last word, then fine, I'll take it.
Word.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
AND ONE LAST TIME. I NEVER DEFENDED THIS IDIOT. I MERELY DON'T JUDGE AS QUICKLY AS YOU OBVIOUSLY DO. WHICH MAKES YOU A HYPOCRITE IN THIS SITUATION.
I wanted to know all of the facts before I jumped on the racism bandwagon.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
by that token - everyone who speeds should get sued ... the JP has resigned - that's his "ticket" ...
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
then we had a little waah in the middle of it all..
he's baaaaaaack.
then we wanted to compare the topic to breeding of dogs....
now we're back to the dude is not a racist :roll:
ánd that's just a few.
I still say I didn't defend him. I defended his right to his opinion, based on what I thought I knew at the time. But fine, we'll go your route so we can stop this nonsense.
I INITIALLY DEFENDED HIM AND THEN RESEARCHED AND ADMITTED I WAS WRONG. (can we please move on now to the matter at hand?)
to me (and to everone but you and gimme), that part of the discussion is dead. you people keep bringing it up when it was resolved about 4 pages ago. now we're talking about the right to sue someone for money they do/don't deserve.
I'm NOT defending this guy. I'm against monetary compensation of ANY KIND IN ANY SITUATION unless there was some tangible monies lost by the plaintiff. To me it's that black and freakin' white.
What money did these people lose? Did they miss work? Did they have hospital bills? NOPE.
They didn't lose money. They shouldn't get money. Simple. You can't financially quantify a feeling being hurt.
It IS that simple.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
no. we get points on our license which affect our driving privileges and insurance rates, which is a long term punishment/consequences akin to his resignation. then we pay the fee on top of that, and so can he.
i've spent quite a bit of time in this thead, and as the thread starter, i blame you!
uhhh ... ok ... what is a reasonable fee?
that's what the jury will decide.
but the jury doesn't decide what that fine is when you sped ... it's set for the most part ... what if i told you it would cost you $50,000 for your speeding ticket ... is that reasonable?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
probably not. but if the jury decides on something that is totally unreasonable, it will be overturned on appeal. and there are guidelines now in most jurisdictions that limit how much can be given out as punitive damages in tort claims like this. kinda like how a cop can decide whether or not he wants to just get you for speeding, or add a ticket for the busted tail light, missing seat belt, etc.
well ... reasonable is subjective i suppose ...
of course it's subjective. which is why i'm not sure what your point is. if this is nothing more than fishing for cash, the case will get tossed. if there's something to it, it will go to a jury. there's a lot more need for discretion in this sort of thing. it's easy to have a flat fee for a speeding ticket becos it's the same offense for everyone. with a case like this, it depends on the hardship to the plaintiffs, the malice of the defendant, how much is needed to make it punitive without devestating, etc. all i'm saying is that just becos the problem has stopped doesn't mean the guy should be off the hook. there are a lot of good reasons to pursue some sort of punishment... to deter him or deter others from taking on this sort of responsibility and thinking they won't be held accountable if they deny our citizens their rights in their capacity as magistrate.
that's entirely possible that they did that, thinking ahead of a civil lawsuit (kinda doubtful, but anything's possible), but in essence, it would be the same if you were in line at the grocery store, and one clerk said "I'm sorry, I don't serve Africans, but you can go see the clerk to my left, as they do".
maybe he wasn't denying them anything per se, but it's still pretty offensive.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I totally understand your point and the ideals behind the deterrence of crimes by way of punitive punishment, however, I think maybe you put a little too much faith in the justice system. You say "if it's nothing more than fishing for cash, the case will get tossed". There are too many cases to count where people get a ridiculous amount of money for ridiculous reasons. The most famous, of course, is the aforementioned McDonald's coffee fiasco. $3 million because that person spilled coffee on themselves? Outrageous.
This could quite literally ruin this guy's entire life, which is not reasonable considering the long-term ramifications for the victims are pretty well non-existent.
I think him resigning is being held accountable, no?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
my point is that it reeks of opportunism and greed and that this couple is taking advantage of a situation ... i've not heard of things getting tossed as i've read about some crazy settlements in the US ... in my opinion - they encountered someone with prejudice, something that happens to many all the time ... although it isn't right - i feel that they are going to sue for some (in my opinion) unreasonable amount ... something that ultimately is subjective ... obviously - i'm guessing just on this board the range of what is considered reasonable would be wide ranging
he he he....
seriously, now some are attempting to draw a parallel between the JoP actions and a speeding ticket....and that these folks should not sue...even though suing is within their rights....
this stuff is gold, pure gold...!!!
of course you haven't. who's going to read about the thousands of cases that get tossed every day based on the opportunism you speak of? nobody would read that, so it doesn't get published. 1000 cases get tossed before anyone even gets a lawyer, but the only article you'll see is the one every 2-3 years where some slick lawyer got a sympathetic client and made a fortune on behalf of a dumb jury. if you truly believe that is the norm here... i don't know what to tell you.
there's a difference between private actors and state officials. private actors get far more leeway. even so, they cannot discriminate in sales contracts. so they'd be getting slapped with a lawsuit too.
it's a start. but like i said, there's value in teaching a lesson and sending a message. he clearly hasn't learned anything and therin is the problem. and we need to let other people know this is unacceptable.
i rather doubt it's going to come anywhere near ruining his life, and if it does, sorry, im not getting all misty-eyed becos some outdated racist went broke for being a douchebag.