Gay men sue counselors who promised to make them straight

[Hugh]

It looks like people are starting to hold these 'conversion therapy to make them straight' a accountable. It's about time, this scam should've illegal every in the us, just not CA.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/27/us/con...html?hpt=hp_t3

Hugh

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Hugh

It looks like people are starting to hold these 'conversion therapy to make them straight' a accountable. It's about time, this scam should've illegal every in the us, just not CA.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/27/us/con...html?hpt=hp_t3

Hugh

I dislike that people do this, but this suing them is about as dumb as suing a fortune teller for the future not coming true.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by eric/

I dislike that people do this, but this suing them is about as dumb as suing a fortune teller for the future not coming true.

They absolutely should sue them. They're promising something they can't deliver. And if the law won't make this stuff illegal, then this is about the only other course to take. Sue them out of business.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by leekohler

They absolutely should sue them. They're promising something they can't deliver. And if the law won't make this stuff illegal, then this is about the only other course to take. Sue them out of business.

Might as well sue your local church. This lawsuit is just as dumb.

How do we know that it didn't work and they are just pretending to be gay to get money?

And if you were really "tricked" by such a promise, sorry but that's just your fault. You can't go around suing everybody on the planet for your own stupidity.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by eric/

Might as well sue your local church. This lawsuit is just as dumb.

How do we know that it didn't work and they are just pretending to be gay to get money?

And if you were really "tricked" by such a promise, sorry but that's just your fault. You can't go around suing everybody on the planet for your own stupidity.

You also are not permitted to damage people just because they submit to your quackery and believe your promises. Preying on people who are weak is not exactly legal either. For example, if someone give you permission to murder them, you don't suddenly get away with murder.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by leekohler

You also are not permitted to damage people just because they submit to your quackery and believe your promises. Preying on people who are weak is not exactly legal either. For example, if someone give you permission to murder them, you don't suddenly get away with murder.

Not even close to the same thing

and if somebody gave you permission to kill them, it wouldn't be murder

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by eric/

and if somebody gave you permission to kill them, it wouldn't be murder

Only in Ohio?

Pity.

[angelneo]

Originally Posted by eric/

Not even close to the same thing

and if somebody gave you permission to kill them, it wouldn't be murder

Personally, I still think if someone sells you a service that "promises" something, it should still do that, although it's possible that there's some fine print somewhere to indemnify the provider.

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by eric/

I dislike that people do this, but this suing them is about as dumb as suing a fortune teller for the future not coming true.

Bad analogy, not even close to the same service for a start. It's more like going to a councillor for depression who then precedes to tell you you're a bad person for being depressed and you should pray to god for help.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

Bad analogy, not even close to similarity.

In what way?


Also, here's the actual filing:

http://cdna.splcenter.org/sites/defa..._Complaint.pdf

Here's what I actually find disturbing, the mothers of those young men sent them there. That's abuse, and they should be losing custody or being required to go to remedial therapy themselves.

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by eric/

In what way?

Read the edit.

Originally Posted by eric/

Also, here's the actual filing:

http://cdna.splcenter.org/sites/defa..._Complaint.pdf

Here's what I actually find disturbing, the mothers of those young men sent them there. That's abuse, and they should be losing custody or being required to go to remedial therapy themselves.

Yet you find it unreasonable for them to sue the providers?

[eric/]

After reading the filing, I think that the mothers should be in trouble for abuse, and the counselors sued into oblivion.

But philosophically, I'm opposed to generally suing people in this manner.

----------

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

Bad analogy, not even close to the same service for a start. It's more like going to a councillor for depression who then precedes to tell you you're a bad person for being depressed and you should pray to god for help.

Both are pretty much the same thing imo.

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by eric/

Both are pretty much the same thing imo.

Your opinion and practice are different things. They would be the same if council sessions consisted of mainly "You're going to **** a chick some day". I don't think a fortune teller ever instructed someone to beat someone with a tennis racquet while screaming at them.

"On one occasion, Downing instructed Unger to beat an effigy of his mother with a tennis racket, as though killing her, and encouraged Unger to scream at his mother while beating her effigy," the suit said.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

Your opinion and practice are different things. They would be the same if council sessions consisted of mainly "You're going to **** a chick some day". I don't think a fortune teller ever instructed someone to beat someone with a tennis racquet while screaming at them.

As I said, after reading the actual filing, yes they should be sued.

But generally suing people for such a thing? Disagree.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by eric/

In what way?


Also, here's the actual filing:

http://cdna.splcenter.org/sites/defa..._Complaint.pdf

Here's what I actually find disturbing, the mothers of those young men sent them there. That's abuse, and they should be losing custody or being required to go to remedial therapy themselves.

I kind of wonder if they have to sign a waiver of any kind indicating a lack of guarantees. It is nonsense, yet I don't know that a ban will be all that effective. It's unfortunate that people can't always see past those that prey on their hopes.

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by eric/

As I said, after reading the actual filing, yes they should be sued.

But generally suing people for such a thing? Disagree.

If it's in the law for someone to sue, go right ahead. Not my problem.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

If it's in the law for someone to sue, go right ahead. Not my problem.

So I assume you were ok with such lawsuits as

"this coffee that's super hot isn't marked as hot and it burnt me"?

It's in the law after all...

----------

Originally Posted by thekev

I kind of wonder if they have to sign a waiver of any kind indicating a lack of guarantees. It is nonsense, yet I don't know that a ban will be all that effective. It's unfortunate that people can't always see past those that prey on their hopes.

I say ban pyramid schemes and infomercial stuff. Ban weight loss supplements that don't work too.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by eric/

I say ban pyramid schemes and infomercial stuff. Ban weight loss supplements that don't work too.

Those would be the kinds of things that came to mind when I mentioned potential lack of effectiveness. Bans are pointless if you either won't enforce them or lack the unallocated resources.

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by eric/

So I assume you were ok with such lawsuits as

"this coffee that's super hot isn't marked as hot and it burnt me"?

It's in the law after all...

You mean that case where the lady suffered 3rd degree burns?

The coffee was so incredibly hot that third degree burns scalded Ms. Liebeck's skin and destroyed nerve endings. She was hospitalized for almost eight days and required skin grafting. Prior to hiring a lawyer, she asked McDonald's to merely cover her medical expenses of approximately $20,000, but they offered her $800. Ms. Liebeck hired a lawyer and filed a products-liability lawsuit, essentially alleging that McDonald's was serving a defective product to customers.

Try Harder.

..and yes. You live in a country which entitles you to sue. If you want to change it, petition your government instead of whining on the internet.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

You mean that case where the lady suffered 3rd degree burns?



Try Harder.

Hot coffee is hot

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

..and yes. You live in a country which entitles you to sue. If you want to change it, petition your government instead of whining on the internet.

The ole' like it or leave it fallacy

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by eric/

Hot coffee is hot

Hot coffee should not give someone 2nd or 3rd degree burns. Don't make yourself look stupid.

Originally Posted by eric/

The ole' like it or leave it fallacy

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

No, there is no discussion to be had. It's like the gun rights discussions, just another opportunity for someone to stroke themselves off while typing on a keyboard and the mods decide what limb they should tear off next.

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

... You live in a country which entitles you to sue....

So far, anyway. Every now and then, some bunch of [unprintables] get a hair up their dark side about so called "tort reform", which always seems to be about reining in the average person's right to file a lawsuit. Curiously, the tort reformers tend to line up with the glibertarians, so they offer us a big platter of free-to-do-whatever-you-want alongside a steaming tureen of probably-not-able-to-sue-someone-for-behaving-irresponsibly.

[Andeavor]

Originally Posted by eric/

So I assume you were ok with such lawsuits as

"this coffee that's super hot isn't marked as hot and it burnt me"?

It's in the law after all...

----------



I say ban pyramid schemes and infomercial stuff. Ban weight loss supplements that don't work too.

There is one big difference; fiddling with a person's psyche is vastly different than burning them with hot coffee. These conversion therapies are akin to brainwashing, a scam which should be illegal bar none.

Dealing with a person and their issues with their sexual orientation needs to be addressed by a professional psychiatrist - even a specialized psychologist will do - and the last time I checked, homosexuality is not listed among "treatable conditions".

In this case suing is acceptable.

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by Sydde

So far, anyway. Every now and then, some bunch of [unprintables] get a hair up their dark side about so called "tort reform", which always seems to be about reining in the average person's right to file a lawsuit. Curiously, the tort reformers tend to line up with the glibertarians, so they offer us a big platter of free-to-do-whatever-you-want alongside a steaming tureen of probably-not-able-to-sue-someone-for-behaving-irresponsibly.

Until the US gets systems in place to have proper recourse (like tribunals), suing is the best you got and should stay.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Macaroony

There is one big difference; fiddling with a person's psyche is vastly different than burning them with hot coffee. These conversion therapies are akin to brainwashing, a scam which should be illegal bar none.

Dealing with a person and their issues with their sexual orientation needs to be addressed by a professional psychiatrist - even a specialized psychologist will do - and the last time I checked, homosexuality is not listed among "treatable conditions".

In this case suing is acceptable.

Why does this "psyche" distinction matter?

And the comparison with the hot coffee is basically to point out frivolous lawsuits. Even if the coffee is 250 degrees, you still know that it is hot and that you should let it cool before consuming.

One of the things that sucks about this country is the ability to sue people for anything. No matter how stupid it is.