Cloaking your bigotry in your religion still makes it bigotry, and makes you a hypocrite and an A-Hole!

OK, let’s get a couple of things straight, while we may very well be a religious nation we certainly not a Christian nation; and before you get bent out of shape, I’m a practicing Roman Catholic. We are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, and literally hundreds of other beliefs. We have civil laws in this country, not religious ones, which is why we can now get divorced, buy alcohol and work on Sunday, and freely worship (or not) in the faith we so choose. The Pilgrims you cite simply wanted to escape having to be forced to practice a belief that wasn’t theirs. Just as the same-sex couples in Kentucky simply wanted the right to marry whomever they loved, as did Kim Davis (four times).

Second, Kim Davis was not jailed for practicing her religion; she was jailed for attempting to force others to practice her religion. When Christians talk about “Freedom of Religion” they tend to forget that there are other non-Christian religions that are entitled to receive the same protections of faith to which they (as Christians) are entitled, and which don’t necessarily believe or practice the in same fashion as do Christians (hey, there are a hundred or Christian faiths which each have different belief structures and practices).

The fact of the matter is that Davis refused to follow a legal law that was declared Constitutional by the highest court in the land, the same court that allowed Whites and non-Whites to marry half a century or so previously. You allowing her to cite her faith to refuse to follow the law of the land begs the question; would a Muslim be allowed to refuse a driver’s license to a woman because they believe that women are not allowed to drive? Would a Mormon clerk be allowed to issue multiple marriage licenses to a man because that is part of their belief structure? Would a Hindu clerk be able to refuse to issue a restaurant license to an establishment that serves meat? A Jewish clerk to a restaurant that serves pork? Would a Pacifist be allowed to not issue a gun license because they don’t believe in violence? Would a Roman Catholic Judge be able to deny a divorce because they don’t believe in it? Would a Catholic clerk be able to deny a marriage license to a divorced person?

And on and on. In this country, we do not operate under religious laws, we operate under secular laws. You don’t have to like it, but that’s the way things work here. Still, if you wish to cite Biblical law, remember this: There are 10 Commandments, not one of them deals with same-sex relations. Jesus himself never once spoke about same-sex relations. You would think that if same-sex relations were as important to God as they are to some hardline Christians, it would have made the top 10 list. Also you don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you wish to enforce.

There are (as I understand) some 480 Mosaic Laws in Scripture, including how to dress, what to eat, how to act, etc. and yet Davis (and others) choose to pick same-sex relations as their lightning rod (again, this in spite of the fact that Jesus never spoke out about it). Finally, when asked which was the greatest Commandment, Jesus Himself said to love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind, and that the second greatest Commandment was just as important; to love your neighbor as yourself. He said that if we were to do these two things, all the laws of the Prophets would fall into line.

Kim Davis doesn’t give a Right Royal Leap into Long Island Sound about what God wants, she only cares about what she wants.

The Perfessor

The hottest coffee lawsuit ever!

OK, like us, here at coffee central, we know that you’ve all heard about the silliest lawsuit ever, the one that kick-started all of the goofy lawsuits you’ve ever heard about. Yep, it’s the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit. you know the one, where some addled grandmother spilled a cup of hot coffee on herself and then sued McDonald’s a bazillion dollars because somehow it didn’t occur to her that the coffee was actually, you know, hot.

Too bad that hardly any of that information is true.

Yes, a grandmother did spill coffee on herself that had been served by McDonald’s but as for the rest, well, let’s just say that there is more to that story than you might have heard. First of all, most coffee (especially coffee you make and serve at home heats up to around 140 degrees. The Mcd’s coffee had been heated to around 190 something of a significant difference). Plus, the grandmother in question had repeatedly asked for compensation in much smaller amounts which the lawyers from Micky D’s routinely scoffed at and ignored. Plus, when they finally got to court, it was revealed that “upwards of 700 customers” had already filed similar suits against the clown house in previous years, all of which MCD also ignored, because the complaints amounted to “were only one for every 24 million cups of coffee sold.” (Not exactly the argument you want to give in court, in front of a jury while an injured grandmother is sitting in front of you.)

Finally, the jury granted the woman $160,000 in damages punitive damages against McDonald’s for $2.7 million. The judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000, and the two eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Regardless of where you stand on the merits of Liebeck’s legal case, it’s hard to deny the sweep of the infamous “coffee case.” McDonald’s now serves its coffee in a lower temperature range, and the warnings about the dangers of hot liquids seem to grow continuously. Liebeck died in 2004 at the age of 91, three years before McDonald’s added iced coffee to its menu.

You can read the details to this suit here.

Man do we love coffee.

The Perfessor

The Great Carbonaro’s Ghost’s revenge

Some folks just deserve to be Gibbs-Smacked. This post is about one such jerkwad. No, I won’t name him, he knows who he is.

(c) Hal Jones
Several years ago, my good friend John Carbonaro purchased the legendary comicbook characters, Wally Wood’s T.H.U.N.D.E.R Agents. He attempted a couple of re-launches, and then somehow, hooked up with this particularly smarmy asshat. It was this guy that not only wormed his way into John’s business, but then (quite literally) all but stole his business and (legally-owned) characters away. This disreputable slug, then launched a misinformation campaign to disseminate bogus information that John’s legally-owned characters existed in the public domain.

John took him to court, and (eventually) won. Beat the pants off this ganif in fact.

Well, some people don’t know how to take a legal drumming like a man, and back in 2005, this dirt-bag was up to his old bag of tricks, attempting to retcon the truth by still claiming that the Agents were in the PD (they are not, and never were). Well, Carbs may be dead, but he still owns the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents.

Anyway the thread ended like this:

Let’s just say that John may no longer be with us, but let there be no doubt that his lawyer can still beat up your lawyer. Especially when it comes to the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents. Count on it.

We still miss you John, but that really is some wicked-ass superpower you have, and I hope that, wherever you are, you are watching, and got a real good chuckle out of this.

You friend.

The Perfessor

Say it IS so!

Yeah, yeah, there are those of us who always knew this, but now there is a Federal Judge that agrees with us…

Cheerleading is NOT a sport.

Hey, don’t yell at me, I didn’t say it, he did

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Quinnipiac University has discriminated against female student-athletes by denying them the same opportunities to participate in sports programs as men and ordered the school, within 60 days, to develop a plan to correct the situation.

Watch the video after the jump Continue reading Say it IS so!

And now a word from our lawyers…

Well, not “our” lawyers, so much, but a buncha law-related stories that I thought I’d toss together while waiting for my client to call this morning. First up, the Vatican is setting up roadblocks…er it’s legal strategy in its most recent slate of sex-abuse lawsuits.

The Catholic Church has been dealing with its sex-abuse problems for decades. In that span, thousands of lawsuits have been filed, and millions upon millions have been paid out to victims.

But lawsuits filed against the Vatican have been few and far between. The vast majority of the litigation has been aimed at individual priests, bishops and dioceses.

With that as a backdrop, let’s give you the news: The Vatican itself is soon due to defend itself in U.S. court, after failing to thwart a lawsuit claiming it ordered American bishops to cover up evidence of child sex abuse. In court filings expected next week, the Vatican likely will provide the most comprehensive look yet at how it plans to defend itself against the accusations. Click here for our story in Friday’s WSJ.


Next, something from TV lawyers, as we learn (much to our dismay), that Law and Order is officially, and truly canceled after 20 years on TV (tying Gunsmoke for the record of longest live-action drama in prime time).

The news is as unwelcome as the death of an old friend, even if you knew he was sick: NBC has canceled “Law & Order” after 20 years. The longevity of this beloved series has been a mystery to many critics, but its appeal has been undeniable. How many holidays have I spent on the couch watching “two separate but equally important groups” investigate, interrogate, and try murderers? How many such days have you, hypocrite lecteur, thus wasted too?


Then there is this, far more sobering story about a 7-year-old child who was accidentally shot and killed (by the cops themselves) during a police raid.

It’s only been two weeks since the video of the February raid by the Columbia, Missouri SWAT team went viral. It caught fire because of the brutal, pointless, banal killing of the family dog, as cops in helmets and body armor swept into a home with a young child. The one saving grace, if it can be called that, is that they didn’t shoot the child. This time they did.


Finally, there is this suit, concerning(of all things) Superheroes and, well lawyers:

Even caped crusaders can wind up in court.

After months of discussions, DC Comics, a unit of Time Warner’s Warner Bros., filed a lawsuit today against Los Angeles-based attorney Marc Toberoff in an attempt to protect rights to its lucrative “Superman” property.

The Perfessor

“First, Kill all the lawyers…”

Again, just to be clear, I’m not so much advocating violence, but quoting Shakespeare here. Why am I saying this (again), well, other than the obvious reasons? Easy, I just read this post over at No Funny Lawyers, and well, I was both amused, and a tad irritated.

On Reading Contracts: What to do When Asked for Your Immortal Soul
Whether it’s your soul or just your money at risk, assume that every contract you sign can and will be used against you. I don’t practice canonical law, so I can’t say if an agreement to sell your immortal soul can be enforced against you. An agreement to hold Facebook harmless against trouble coming from your use of its site is a different matter altogether, at least in Colorado.

Well, for an April Fool’s joke, the British gaming vendor Gamestation recently added the following requirement to its online terms of use:

By placing an order via this Web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from or one of its duly authorised minions.

To be sure, it was an April Fool’s stunt, but apparently some 7,500 people (almost 90% of the site’s users on April 1st) agreed to this sinister Faustian bargain, all the while ignoring the opt-out option that would have given them a £5 credit (about $8) toward their purchase.

Apparently, there are other, equally suspicious, if not as outright evil, contracts that also exist, so we urge you all to actually read what you are signing, as no right of your is protected if it isn’t actually written down. Sure there are promises that are made and assurances given (“Oh, we’ll never do THAT.”) but unless it is in writing it is not only not worth the paper on which it’s (not) printed, but totally unenforceable.

Caveat emptor

The Perfessor, esq.