On 2018-07-25 6:17 p.m., Shal Farley wrote:
?That's why this topic terrifies me as a moderator.
+1
often divisive issue such as political beliefs is treacherous.
As a want-to-be consultant, my recommendation would be to _not_ offer
the discount, because it leads to "you knew, or should have known the
content of the group", and as such, you are liable for blah, where
"blah" is something deplorable, despicable, and otherwise abhorrent, in
the eyes of the plaintiff, situations.
If you provide tools that enable the construction or doing of something,
you absolutely do not want to have any inkling of what your clients are
doing with those tools. To have such knowledge gives one more liability
than the client who did the actions.
?Specifically religious beliefs, which I think makes that case qualitatively different
The current trend is to present something as both:
* A Free Speech issue;
* A Religious Rights issue;
Courts do their best to avoid getting involved in religious disputes.
I remember a court case several decades back, where the judge asked at
least once an hour, why it wasn't a simple religious dispute, and as
such, outside the purview of the court. I think it was the point at
which each side was ready to tell the bailiff to arrest both opposing
counsel, and their client, for some variant of theft, did the judge
understand that it really was about who got the money.
There is a reason Masonic Jurisprudence frowns upon getting involved in
civil court.
Insert standard legal disclaimer.
jonathon
