Well, I don't have any comment on the ruling, except that it wasn't quite as awful as I expected.
However, I kept thinking the Post had made a typo in reporting the lawyer's name - does "barbara findlay" really reject the use of capital letters? Am I to understand this is a serious move on her part? Sheesh.
She does indeed. It's no mistake.
Well Curt, I find the most unbelievable part of the judgement the acceptance that the lesbians had no idea that they were renting a hall with religious affiliations. If you look at a map of the property its between a Catholic Church, a Catholic school and behind a rectory. Apparantly the crucifix, the portraits of the Pope and two local priests also didn't suggest to the couple that there may be a religious link.
In my my legal opinion this screams of "willful blindness" if not outright deciet. I'm fairly sure this was nothing more than precident hunting. I hope one or both sides appeal as this was a silly ruling which seems devoid of any legal basis o precedent.
I hear ya Chris. Isn't a court bound to assume innocence, however? I look at it the same, but in legal "the law is an ass" terms, isn't all that circumstantial?
Commenting by HaloScan
