| re: Good. (nm) |
| Posted by: keikekaze 06:11 pm EST 02/17/21 |
| In reply to: re: Good. (nm) - Zelgo 09:13 am EST 02/17/21 |
|
| The case would have turned out exactly the same in any court in the world, regardless of the judges' opinions on homosexuality, because the case does not turn on homosexuality. The case turns on the question whether you can sue someone for damages after they have not allowed you to do something that you were going to refuse to do anyway, and the well-settled legal answer is: No. |
|
reply
|
|
| Previous: |
re: Good. (nm) - Zelgo 09:13 am EST 02/17/21 |
| Next: |
re: Good. (nm) - MockingbirdGirl 10:44 am EST 02/17/21 |
| Thread: |
|
