|
Black Baby Goku posted:It's not fit for western society. Let it stay in tribal third world hellholes. Private arbitration is actually one of the cornerstones the US legal system is built on. The overworked court system would really rather you handle small disputes on your own. It doesn't matter if your private arbitrator is the local priest, a mutual friend, whatever. As long as both parties consent to the arbitrator the courts are just happy to offload those torts onto the arbitrator.
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:Hmm, why do you think this would matter, especially to women? First, I was specifically responding to if private arbitration is fit for western society, and it clearly is given the lengthy history private arbitration has in the US legal system. Second, if your point is that sexist communities can pressure women into doing things they'd rather not do, then I'm aware of that but I don't see what you're getting at with this? burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:It isn't fit for modern western society, especially in regards to the religion in question, Private arbitration will continue to exist so long as tort law exists and the number of judges in the world is finite. Throwing a fit over it won't change that. quote:and my point is how fair could private Sharia Law arbitration be to women? Whether or not a Sharia Law court is more or less sexist than your average US judge, if a woman feels that a Sharia Law court would be sexist against her she is totally free to decline, just as she is free to accept if she feels the arbitrator would be less racist against her than a given white judge.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Totally free to decline, ignoring the major social pressures Muslim women are under to conform and obey their male family members. Okay, so are you in favor of abolishing contract law? You can raise the exact same objection to contracts and yet I don't recall anyone saying we need to do away with contracts.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:Lets equate religious courts with contract law. No, let's equate private arbitration with contract law considering the two are both major aspects of tort law. Thug Lessons posted:Yes you shouldn't be forced into private arbitration generally, obviously. Okay? When did I imply otherwise? Helsing posted:As far as I know there actually have been some issues raised with the growing tendency for firms to write clauses into contracts demanding private arbitration to settle disputes. It's become a way of avoiding the stricter (and much more public) oversight of the legal system. Absolutely! I would totally agree that mandatory arbitration clauses shouldn't be enforceable. A person should always have the right to go "nope, we're settling this in front of a US Judge, not your friend Steve". Trying to do away with private arbitration entirely would be very hard (and discussion about that would probably warrant its own thread) and specifically banning religious arbitration would be impossible without a constitutional convention, but mandatory arbitration clauses are absolutely terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
What is this list supposed to tell us about Islamophobia?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Pretty sure he's an actual 14 year old at this point. Or drunk posting for like three days straight. Same effect different source.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Also until '59, Catholics also would have needed to know a weird moon language to go to church where there was group prayer multiple times a day. Unless that's the joke? 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:The church ideas come from god, I ain't changing that without fundamentally rewriting religious texts. You could have just posted "I am totally unaware of the history of any major church in the world" and saved everyone a whole bunch of time. Like, churches reform, change policies, have councils, etc all the time. The Church of England did not start off pro gay marriage, abortion, and granting equal rights/participation to women. It adopted these policies over time. Some churches have an easier time implementing reforms, some have too broad of a membership base to be able to rapidly react to changes in public opinion in some of its regions, etc but they all do it. Even the Catholic Church, the church that most strongly believes that it is infallible, that has the most spread out membership across 5 different continents, that has the most tradition/inertia behind change, does change and reform frequently and is even today going through reforms to decentralize its administration and allow for priests to preach more diverse opinions.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 04:45
|
|