Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005

These sort of arbitration agreements are an area of the law I know only a very little about but my first intuition is that the agreement in the OP is not remotely enforceable in this situation.

I wish one of our legal goons with knowledge in this area would chime in on this.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005

LeJackal posted:

I'm not FORCING you to hand over your wallet, its just an option alternative to me murdering you.


This kind of contract was signed under textbook duress.

No it's not, congrats on finding the one part of this that isn't hosed up to bitch about.

Unlike getting murdered him going to jail was a correct legal outcome.

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005

Kawasaki Nun posted:

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?

This describes my intuition on the subject pretty well, though again I don't claim to be knowledgeable on this area of the law.

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005


Wow, so it looks like the OP article is a bunch of bullshit.

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005

VitalSigns posted:

What should be illegal is the quackery of gay conversion therapy.

You can't sign an arbitration contract to let a doctor bleed you for pneumonia or treat your syphilis with mercury without recourse to the courts when it kills you.

Is there evidence there was any gay conversation therapy? I thought it was just some of the counselors told him being gay was a sin.

Which is a bad thing, but it's a completely different kettle of fish from conversation therapy.

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005

VitalSigns posted:

It's still legal in some states, although there is a Florida lawmaker trying to ban it there


I'm not a lawyer or anything and I have no idea what constitutes malpractice for someone claiming to be providing medical services like addiction treatment, but if giving known demonstrably harmful quack psychological counseling to someone in your care for treatment isn't illegal, it should be.

Its not a legal argument I'm just asking for clarification, there's a world of difference between counselors making some disparaging comments and no poo poo conversation therapy.

The latter usually involves massive amounts of physical and psychological abuse.

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005

VitalSigns posted:

Telling a gay person that you're treating for psychological and physiological dependence on drugs that they're bad for being gay and they should stop is abuse.

If you're treating someone medically you should be held to pretty high standards. I don't think the counselor should, for example, be able to tell patients "God wants you to have sex with me" even though it would be perfectly legal for me to say that to a random person on the street.

Okay so do you not understand what actual gay conversion therapy is? Cause when I say "abuse" I don't mean "being an rear end in a top hat", I mean poo poo like intentionally inflicting serious lifelong trauma so that people suffer severe PTSD symptoms when they feel homosexual attraction.

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005

VitalSigns posted:

You're conflating several things here. You're conflating "don't be gay" with "Christian values", those aren't the same thing at all.

You're also conflating something a pastor might say in general with what someone specifically claiming to be treating your medical condition might say. My pastor could say "will you have sex with me" or "God wants you to have sex with me" to a parishioner, but I don't think someone advertising themselves as a counselor and taking that role of authority with a patient should be able to say those things. Do you understand the difference between a "goes to the same church" relationship, and a therapist-patient relationship?

You're conflating what now likely looks like some non-medical counselor making rear end in a top hat comments about homosexuality with running a literal torture the gay away camp.

...and now apparently rape as well?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005

VitalSigns posted:

Oh okay so you do agree there is a power relationship here and the counselors at these places should be held to a higher standard of ethics and behavior than a bible study leader.

Okay good glad you agree?

Oh wait no you don't.

Again I don't think people should get to style themselves counselors, claim to be able to rehabilitate people, and take in people with psychological problems who are faced with jailtime if the counselor doesn't approve of their progress and then go "oops I'm not trained or even baseline competent in what I claim to be able to do, don't hold me to any standards of conduct!"

Why are you so against holding anyone to any sort of professional standards in any thread? Maybe people who are assholes to patients with psychiatric problems shouldn't, uh, be licensed to counsel anyone? And maybe the state shouldn't let unlicensed therapists practice at all? Or at least not allow them to require their patients to waive their right to the court system and agree to let some sharia law kangaroo court handle claims of abuse? I am not comfortable with people who want to be able to take over the state's job of rehabilitation being able to demand that their patients agree that they not be subject to the court's oversight and instead their fellow fundy friends get to hold them to even lower standards than the already-abysmal standard of our criminal justice system.

What in the loving christ are you on about, I asked for clarification whether it turned out that all the talk about "trying to make him straight" and "gay conversation therapy" turned out to be utter bullshit like the rest of the original article since subsequent information is making it sound like it was nothing of the sort. Anyone being a anti-homosexual bigot is a bad thing, but having an employee on staff that's an rear end in a top hat at the fundie camp you begged the judge to let you go to, and then ODing after getting kicked out for refusing to stop getting hosed up at rehab is not the same thing as "Man commits suicide after being sentenced to gay conversation therapy by a judge that made him sign his legal rights in favor of fundie arbitration, sharia in the US!!!1".

  • Locked thread