|
RaySmuckles posted:And arbitrator selection, please? Plaintiff/defendant rights? My understanding is that the lawsuit should be directed at the State requiring the usage of programs that demand issues be resolved through religious arbitration. Arbitration is a preferred means of conflict resolution because it alleviates strain on the court system. There is a hesitancy to overturn agreements to resolve issues via arbitration because, at least in theory, both parties agreed to utilize arbitration without being under duress. If you could just re-neg on your agreement to utilize arbitration then it would serve no purpose as a means of conflict resolution. I have some reservations about the narrative provided in the story posted in the OP. Sweeping denials of liability like the one presented in the story are not enforceable, and it certainly would not be an open and shut decision as to whether or not the family had standing to sue Teen Challenge.
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:I'm not defending my whole idea, but an in-house arbitrator would not be "neutral" so the rulings would be unenforceable (or at least challengeable in court). There are rules to this, we all just clearly don't know them. Right. Signing an arbitration clause doesn't mean that your family cannot pursue a lawsuit against an organization for say, wrongful death or damages that result as a consequence of negligence. Arbitration is a means of conflict resolution that can either be binding or non-binding but which is supposed to be entered into by two consenting parties. I'm not sure about what qualification, if any, there are to entering into an arbitration agreement, however. Obviously in most instances of arbitration between businesses there is a significant amount of financial duress influencing the decision of both parties. It does seem like it would be a violation of a law of some-sort for a state or county to only provide a single option for probation management if that organization required religious arbitration for disputes. While the organization is not technically a part of the government religious arbitration would be unsatisfactory to people of another religion, atheists etc. Outlawing arbitration would be hugely impractical and expensive, and those aren't even the best arguments against illegalization. This whole discussion seems like its just shadowboxing in the absence of an explanation of why his family, who were not signatories to the agreement, cannot bring a case against Teen challenge like the article suggests. Perhaps they were just told that and bought it?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:They did, and the court forced them to enter into arbitration because under Florida law, they could only bring the suit as the executors of his estate, and were bound into the contract he agreed to. Wow this seems extremely bizarre. Could they not establish that his death was atleast potentially a consequence of gross negligence and therefore not subject to the arbitration agreement or something? I don't know how the law works exactly but this seems hugely bizarre
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What should be illegal is the quackery of gay conversion therapy. Isn't it illegal? I mean most of the places I read about are situated in Mexico or some island in an effort to evade legal action in the United States. I didn't see anywhere that any attempt at gay conversion therapy took place? The kid said they were trying to make him straight but that's not particularly definitive about what was going on.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
This is a bad discussion about a dumb hypothetical
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You know there's a reason slippery slope is a fallacy right? How do you know that it was a treatment councilor and not just an employee of the organization? Edit: Or even just another person in treatment? The suicide note wasn't particularly definitive
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 06:55
|
|