To be fair yoga is pretty much satanic.
4 Likes
No. Devil hates yoga.
2 Likes
My fun yoga fact.
Yoga and yoke both come from the same indo-european origin. About 7000 years apart.
Kind of cool.
1 Like
This makes me feel cooler about the yoga exercises my trainer has me doing.
Bugs Bunny sawing off Florida gifs ad infinitum
1 Like
I may be getting lost in the double negatives. But my read is that you cant prove the truth of someone being discriminatory ONLY through their religious beliefs or scientific ābeliefsā (lol)
Iām kinda missing this. Seems like theyāre saying plaintiff when they mean defendant and vice versa. Or is this the language of a countersuit where the plaintiff is now the guy suing for defamation because he was accused of discrimination? I donāt know. Iāll go back to sleep now.
Yes, itās that. The plaintiff is being defamed because theyāve been accused of discrimination after they said āItās Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steveā while rejecting a job applicant.
1 Like
Was scrolling around Libs of Tiktok today because I apparently hate myself?
The one sure thing I came away with is that right wingers must have access to only extremely shitty porn.
https://mobile.twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1626268309753589762
Theres like, hundreds of these threads and the responses are always the same. How can we let this porn into our schools?!?!?!?!
1 Like
yeah. that was kind of my read as wellā¦ it basically makes religious beliefs and āscientificā beliefs(read foxnews stories) affirmative defenses against claims of discrimination.
so if person A discriminates against person B, and person B calls them a bigot/sues them, person A can counter sue and say āyeah, i did that. its because of my religious beliefsā, person A wins the case and then person B owes them a MINIMUM of 35,000 dollars for defamation.
That wasnt quite my read.
Bigot is called a bigot.
Bigot sues the other person.
Other person can use a truth defence, but cant use someone being religious or holding āscientific beliefsā (lol) as proof.
Obviously a terrible law, unclearly written. Which is often deliberate.
Thatās my read. IANAL, but seems to me the only noteworthy element is the $35k figure.
If I publicly accuse someone of discrimination and all I have is ācome on, the guy is a religious Mormonā I feel like that would already be grounds for defamation in a sane environment.
Obviously the whole thing is red meat, and I donāt want to be dismissive of the āchilling effectā element, but it doesnāt seem to be legalizing discrimination even through religion or HELLO?! SCIENCE!!!
idk. i dont see how you get to ātruth defenseā outside of religion/āscienceā.
like what else do you have? hypothetical
A is a trans woman at Bās restaurant.
A uses bathroom that meets with their gender identity.
B ridicules A throws them out of the restaurant causing a scene.
A makes a yelp review that B is a bigot.
B sues A. how does A āproveā discrimination without saying B is a bigot because of Bās āscience beliefā and B refuses to accept Aās gender identity.
-in a normal world youād maybe use Bās 8 facebook posts that say ātrans women are menā or something like that, but if thatās classified in as Bās āscientific beliefsā im guessing you arenāt going to be able to establish that B discriminated against A.
it just seems to me like itās like all these republican legal maneuvers, they are written like shields but they will undoubtedly be used as weapons. and we havenāt even talked about the most chilling point of the proposed bill that an allegation of discrimination is defamation per se.
1 Like
Has to be an homage?
Props for using the original, most people these days would skip straight to Dr. Evil.
3 Likes