Black couple's marriage refused by Mississippi church

[Olianda]

Technically, it is. One of the purposes of tort law is to compensate people for damages caused by others. This can definitely be considered damages (not physical, but definitely fiscal, and most certainly emotional).

How would this be fiscal damage? If they had to cancel the wedding, it'd be fiscal. If the pastor got fired, that could be fiscal. It said the pastor offered to marry them down the road. It's not like they had to reschedule (according to the article anyway.)

[dr2022]

really don't see the big deal, i don't agree with it but i don't agree with church anyway. it's a business and their profit was obviously more important than their values, but all of the churches are that way.

you can't make people like you

Well, since it is business and I can't make them like me, I will make them hate me more, sue their asses so hard they open another donation box.

[Magpai]

I suppose I could have phrased it better.

However, what has the government got to do with anything? They're not the ones who pay for the damages. The church is. And churches are privately funded in the US.

If you sue, it's the government who forces them to pay (with no enforcement they could simply say no, of course). It's the government's laws and the government power to enforce its courts' judgments that cause lawsuit judgments to be paid out. Hence my use of the word "facilitate" rather than the government funding it directly.

[Liara]

How would this be fiscal damage? If they had to cancel the wedding, it'd be fiscal. If the pastor got fired, that could be fiscal. It said the pastor offered to marry them down the road. It's not like they had to reschedule (according to the article anyway.)

I would imagine that having to move everything did not come free (catering, decorations etc.).

---------- Post added 2012-07-29 at 12:40 PM ----------

If you sue, it's the government who forces them to pay (with no enforcement they could simply say no, of course). It's the government's laws and the government power to enforce its courts' judgments that cause lawsuit judgments to be paid out. Hence my use of the word "facilitate" rather than the government funding it directly.

So you think it's a shame that people should be able to receive due compensation for damages caused by others?

[Magpai]

Well, since it is business and I can't make them like me, I will make them hate me more, sue their asses so hard they open another donation box.

Wow, you're such a badass, running to Mommy and Daddy Government to force the church to give you money.

P.S. You have to be a victim to sue, not just an outraged citizen with a righteous indignation fix.

---------- Post added 2012-07-29 at 09:41 AM ----------

I would imagine that having to move everything did not come free (catering, decorations etc.).

---------- Post added 2012-07-29 at 12:40 PM ----------



So you think it's a shame that people should be able to receive due compensation for damages caused by others?

As I ALREADY SAID, what I think is a shame is that you think that money can compensate for emotional wounds, and that you think government should use that principle as a basis for its judgments.

[Liara]

As I ALREADY SAID, what I think is a shame is that you think that money can compensate for emotional wounds, and that you think government should use that principle as a basis for its judgments.

You're right, let's just let them get hurt and do nothing about it whatsoever.

[NewOrleansTrolley]

Technically, it is. One of the purposes of tort law is to compensate people for damages caused by others. This can definitely be considered damages (not physical, but definitely fiscal, and most certainly emotional).

Oh goodness. This is a good example of why people shouldn't talk about law on the internet. Somebody reads one chapter from a law 101 textbook and assume it applies to every State and every fact case scenario.

Again: this website is really biased. Let's try to be rational here and wait for more information. Thanks.

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

It's somewhat comforting to see some good old fashioned american racism once in a while, to remind people of what the world used to be like and how easily it can slip back into it.

[Magpai]

You're right, let's just let them get hurt and do nothing about it whatsoever.

They can do something about it themselves by [strikethrough]recovering their financial losses[/strikethrough]***, telling everyone who will listen what happened, and leaving the church.

The government cannot feasibly fix every hurt feeling, and it's pathetic that people like you need and expect it to.

---------- Post added 2012-07-29 at 09:46 AM ----------

It's somewhat comforting to see some good old fashioned american racism once in a while, to remind people of what the world used to be like and how easily it can slip back into it.

Yeah, nothing gets me off more than a minor history lesson that results in someone (someone else, hopefully, amirite?) suffering a devastating humiliation on what they would like to be one of the most joyful days of their lives.

***Edit: Ok, they need the government to recover the financial side of it, but the "emotional damages" they can take into their own hands. That's what my message was originally about but I wanted to include that they do deserve the money they spent on this wedding back at the church's expense and didn't revise it properly.

[dr2022]

Wow, you're such a badass, running to Mommy and Daddy Government to force the church to give you money.

P.S. You have to be a victim to sue, not just an outraged citizen with a righteous indignation fix.

---------- Post added 2012-07-29 at 09:41 AM ----------



As I ALREADY SAID, what I think is a shame is that you think that money can compensate for emotional wounds, and that you think government should use that principle as a basis for its judgments.

Why the rough tune? I am telling you a hypothetical situation of what I would do, because suing them is the only thing a person can do in these type of situations, and getting money as compensation is the only good thing that might come out of it.

[Liara]

Oh goodness. This is a good example of why people shouldn't talk about law on the internet. Somebody read a paragraph from a law 101 textbook and assume it applies to every State and every fact case scenario.

Again: this website is really biased. Let's try to be rational here and wait for more information. Thanks.

Thanks for the stupid assumption, but it's a wrong one.

Of course it doesn't apply to every scenario or every legal system, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect.

[NewOrleansTrolley]

Nevermind. You know what, you win. Have fun.

[Liara]

They can do something about it themselves by recovering their financial losses, telling everyone who will listen what happened, and leaving the church.

The government cannot feasibly fix every hurt feeling, and it's pathetic that people like you need and expect it to.

Why the fuck should they be responsible for the losses, when said losses should not have occurred, and only did because of a church's last minute prejudiced decision?

I never said the government should fix every hurt feeling. That's why a trial takes place. You don't automatically grant compensation to someone who claims they were hurt. Jesus, use some discretion, will you?

[Ryuukon]

MS isn't the place for death-metalheads. that area is pretty redneck, blacks and whites. they still dogfight, chicken fight and hunt deer to eat and not mount.

MS is the most rural state left in the USA. some parts of it look like something from the 1800s still, little shacks, no running water, no electricity, etc

around 60% of the residents still don't have a landline phone

Congratulations for following a stereotype that has been in place for the past 30 years, regardless if it is wrong or not.

[Magpai]

Why the rough tune? I am telling you a hypothetical situation of what I would do, because suing them is the only thing a person can do in these type of situations, and getting money as compensation is the only good thing that might come out of it.

It is not the only thing you can do. You can sue to get your money back, rather than to get as much as possible, and then leave the church and tell everyone what happened and hope people will sympathize and leave as well. "Suing them is the only thing a person can do" - honestly, to hear someone express that individuals are so powerless.

---------- Post added 2012-07-29 at 09:52 AM ----------

Why the fuck should they be responsible for the losses, when said losses should not have occurred, and only did because of a church's last minute prejudiced decision?

You are deliberately misrepresenting me with this, as I've made it quite clear by now that the church should reimburse the couple the cost of their wedding.

I never said the government should fix every hurt feeling. That's why a trial takes place. You don't automatically grant compensation to someone who claims they were hurt. Jesus, use some discretion, will you?

Oh ok, so there shouldn't necessarily be a guilty verdict for every hurt feeling, but there should be a trial.

[Viertel]

If a church refuses to marry a couple there's nothing they can do because churches are private and can do what they please.

Church and Government have nothing to do with each other, get over it. Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriages to begin with.

False: you really don't pay attention to how the world works, do you?

Secondly, when government alters your taxes around your living arrangement and life partners, then yes marriage is a government issue.

Use some damned common sense.

[Olianda]

I would imagine that having to move everything did not come free (catering, decorations etc.).

Moving decorations isn't very hard, I've actually done it for a few weddings. Catering you could call and tell them "By the way, the location has been changed, we're now just a little down the road at _________ street." It's definitely not worth suing over (fiscally, I'm not saying the discrimination is good.)

[Magpai]

False: you really don't pay attention to how the world works, do you?

Secondly, when government alters your taxes around your living arrangement and life partners, then yes marriage is a government issue.

Use some damned common sense.

Civil marriages are separate from religious marriage ceremonies. My (Catholic) parents were legally married over a week before they had their sacramental church wedding.

[dr2022]

[QUOTE=Magpai;17759576]It is not the only thing you can do. You can sue to get your money back, rather than to get as much as possible, and then leave the church and tell everyone what happened and hope people will sympathize and leave as well. "Suing them is the only thing a person can do" - honestly, to hear someone express that individuals are so powerless.[COLOR="red"]

---------- Post added 2012-07-29 at 09:52 AM ---------- Oh, I see. the "suing so hard" part was just a joke. sorry for misunderstanding you. But yeah, I am just saying, suing them is the only option where both parties walk happy with no revenge plots or broken hearts.

[Liara]

Moving decorations isn't very hard, I've actually done it for a few weddings. Catering you could call and tell them "By the way, the location has been changed, we're now just a little down the road at _________ street." It's definitely not worth suing over (fiscally, I'm not saying the discrimination is good.)

It of course depends on how much extra they had to pay because of the change. If it's lower than what legal proceedings would cost, then it's indeed not worth it