One of my favorite political gaffes of all time.
Nailed it.
Do you think they would not be fair or is it a religion/law argument?Probably.
Looks to me like we need a new term. In addition to "crony capitalism" and "vulture capitalism" it seems we are now embarking on "Christian capitalism."
Jesus would be proud.
I wouldn't sign any contract that specifically says that I can't sue someone unless it's something like a settlement (to replace a lawsuit)
I don't have a problem with arbitration that should be a step before lawsuits but if you are carving something out to prevent the courts from being involved ahead of time, then it's clear to me that you are probably up to something.
Well of course they're up to something. Arbitration is faster and waaay less expensive than going to court. Benefits everyone except the lawyers.
It is and it's a good step to take before you start getting into lawsuits. But specifically trying to write lawsuits out then I'm sorry you are up to something and most likely the arbitration process has been set up so that you can control the outcome.
Let's put it this way. . . lawsuits are discouraged among believers, but I have never been to a church that requires me to sign away my right to sue the church as a condition of joining. Why do people think that when a "Christian" business does it that it's on the up and up while a church at least in my experience has never required me to sign any sort of document saying I will never sue them ever and will do everything through arbitration.
That's because I've never been to a church that is afraid of the secular courts. They obey the law. If you are that afraid of the secular courts that a condition of doing business (or being a member of something) is a pre-signed statement that you will not sue them for anything ever then you are probably violating the law.
People sue over all kinds of stupid stuff. And the awards are nothing compared to the legal bills.
I like this idea. We should take it farther. How about a truth in labeling law that requires all religiously operated companies to incorporate their religion in their name? Or they could use a symbol, stars and crosses and such? I'm not sure if I'm talking myself into or out of this position but I think I am illustrating why religious people should want one secular law for all.Looks to me like we need a new term. In addition to "crony capitalism" and "vulture capitalism" it seems we are now embarking on "Christian capitalism."
Jesus would be proud.
I like this idea. We should take it farther. How about a truth in labeling law that requires all religiously operated companies to incorporate their religion in their name? Or they could use a symbol, stars and crosses and such? I'm not sure if I'm talking myself into or out of this position but I think I am illustrating why religious people should want one secular law for all.
Exactly, this is how it starts. Constant vigilance is the price we pay for freedom.
Go straight to the parable of talents.So I've read the arbitration side of things but I'm curious how it all works?
Let's say the decking company does something that we didn't agree upon (i.e., put in a different type of wood for the deck than I requested). We can't come to some type of resolution so we go to arbitration. Is the arbitrator going look through The Holy Bible for scripture on why the decking company is not liable for putting in the wrong wood for my deck?
For some reason I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around what the arbitration would even be like. Some guy reading from The Holy Bible? Can anyone give me an example of a situation that would make it to arbitration and what that would look like?
That doesn't happen as often as people like to think. The people that sue usually lose a ton of money in the process as well.
Plus writing in a contract that says you can't sue me doesn't prevent that person from being taken to court, it only prevents the lawsuits from being successful. Translation: You still need a lawyer.
So I've read the arbitration side of things but I'm curious how it all works?
Let's say the decking company does something that we didn't agree upon (i.e., put in a different type of wood for the deck than I requested). We can't come to some type of resolution so we go to arbitration. Is the arbitrator going look through The Holy Bible for scripture on why the decking company is not liable for putting in the wrong wood for my deck?
For some reason I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around what the arbitration would even be like. Some guy reading from The Holy Bible? Can anyone give me an example of a situation that would make it to arbitration and what that would look like?
Good grief. I have first-hand knowledge of this stuff. It happens all the time. Plaintiffs don't lose money. Their lawyers lose money if they lose. Plaintiffs have no skin in the game unless they had to pony up for expert testimony or something like that.
If we can force arbitration then the lawyer bills are much lower than going to court.
We also attempt to settle nuisance suits for a low amount of money before even playing the arbitration card. It's all about minimizing the lawyers' fees. We have insurance for any awards we have to pay.
Go straight to the parable of talents.
All true enough. . . but when you write in the contract that under no circumstances can you sue me or seek any form of redress outside of this arbitration process. Then you are clearly up to something and it's not good.
Again I don't have an issue with arbitration itself, I have an issue with a contract that says that the arbitration is the final rule and this can't go through the courts.
I've never had a church that required me to agree not to sue the church as a condition of my membership in the church. If a church isn't afraid of this sort of thing then why should a business be?
For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took.........
Alright, nevermind. You guys win. We'll just learn to live with the oak when we initially liked the way the cedar matched our house.
![]()
Corporations are people my friend.This is another issue I have. The bible provides some good basic rules for arbitration of personal matters between two people or even two groups of people.
Arbitration of business matters like what you are describing is pretty well outside of it's scope from my experience.
You absolutely can. But it can't be hidden. You and OiT want to do it, go for it. But this isn't what's going on. I think it's pretty clear what is upsetting (even if personally I'm against Christian Arbitration, and would never myself go into any agreement that called for it).
Hell, if you and OiT want to go into arbitration by space monkeys, I'm good. But it can't be hidden the way it is. These examples aren't arms-length negotiations of rights.
You'd probably get a donkey out of the deal.
This. Anything that is outside of standard and accepted practices should have to be far more visible. You can't bury in there that accepting this contract requires the purchaser to turn over their first born child, and they simply say, "Hey! You should have read the T&C closer!"
And there is absolutely no question that if there was a case of Sharia Law, the same people who support this would be outraged.
What if the unconscionable part was the Bible?Obviously, the judge would throw out the arbitration clause as being unconscionable if it required your first-born child. These things can be and are thrown out all the time, and judges are very critical when evaluating them.
What if the unconscionable part was the Bible?
Obviously, the judge would throw out the arbitration clause as being unconscionable if it required your first-born child. These things can be and are thrown out all the time, and judges are very critical when evaluating them.