Thread: Pastor Prevails After State Officials Force Him To Turn Over Sermons

Originally Posted by aboutenough

Obviously spying on your employee's doesn't work or the government would have not paid out a settlement.

That makes no sense. No one was spying on Walsh. He expressly was requested for copies of his sermons (why he gave them, I do not know); and they watched his videos posted publicly on You Tube.

Originally Posted by aboutenough

The employer settled. That means they have no defense, so they paid a sum they both agreed on for damages. You think the employer would give money away just because they wanted to?

The next time I post about an FFRF victory in which the defendants settled, will you agree that the settlement means the defendants had no defense? I'd like this on the record for future reference.

Originally Posted by aboutenough

The employer settled. That means they have no defense.

No, it does not. Obviously, there is nothing to defend now, as the case has settled, but settlement does not mean they had no defense. If the plaintiff really thought that, he might insist on taking it to a jury to get even more money - especially considering the government has rather deep pockets. And a jury down there might very well give him more than he got. Settlement is not all about the defendant's case; it is also about the plaintiff's case. There is a lot more going on here than you think. Stop watching so much TV.

Why am I wondering if the sermon reviewers at Georgia's DPH had ever gone out of their way to conduct ideological purity tests on Muslim job candidates?

I have to ask the OP. What in the world are you afraid of? Gay people being treated fairly under the law? Why is that so frightening to you?

Why do you think we're so scary?

It's not religion, and never has been. If that were the case, none of my family would be bugging me about getting married. My family are all Christians and since it became legal, they want me to get married. Every time I go home to visit, it's "So are you seeing anybody? When can we all meet him?"

Now I get what straight people have been going through forever.

Originally Posted by aboutenough

go ahead and try it. I could sue you for posting a video of me without my permission. I would like to make enough money to buy a new house

Oh my goodness! You don't understand a single thing about privacy laws. You are willingly, by your consent, walking out in public and preaching idiotic sermons. Anyone could film you and put you on YouTube, and you would lose the case easily. Your only hope would be False Light, and the burden of proof would be on you to prove I libeled you.

Originally Posted by Michael J

Oh my goodness! You don't understand a single thing about privacy laws. You are willingly, by your consent, walking out in public and preaching idiotic sermons. Anyone could film you and put you on YouTube, and you would lose the case easily. Your only hope would be False Light, and the burden of proof would be on you to prove I libeled you.

I really hope he's extremely young or very old.

Originally Posted by Djinn

The next time I post about an FFRF victory in which the defendants settled, will you agree that the settlement means the defendants had no defense? I'd like this on the record for future reference.

He makes the same Texas Sharpshooter fallacies until the bloody end of time.

Originally Posted by aboutenough

The employer settled. That means they have no defense, so they paid a sum they both agreed on for damages. You think the employer would give money away just because they wanted to?

The employer could have settled for numerous reasons. Maybe they thought it wasn't worth the opportunity costs. You do know what a cost/benefit analysis is, right?

Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey

That makes no sense. No one was spying on Walsh. He expressly was requested for copies of his sermons (why he gave them, I do not know); and they watched his videos posted publicly on You Tube.

You can't spy on someone if they openly give or tell you something.