Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   After prominent member of anti-gay group switches teams, group reconsiders position. Just kidding, they are going to sue his pants off   ( tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line
    More: Followup, NOM, legal threat, confidentiality agreements, local church, Louis Marinelli, underwear  
•       •       •

14172 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Apr 2011 at 2:27 PM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



138 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2011-04-19 12:28:10 PM  
the religious right does NOT like apostate traitors. they'll destroy the guy and not think twice.
 
2011-04-19 12:29:43 PM  
And then once the pants are off...lets just say if this stall is rockin' don't come a knockin'.
 
2011-04-19 01:50:08 PM  
NTTAWWT.
 
2011-04-19 02:27:51 PM  
NOM NOM NOM.
 
2011-04-19 02:28:44 PM  
what a bunch of hateful, useless people
 
2011-04-19 02:29:27 PM  
So they're going to review his briefs?
 
2011-04-19 02:29:28 PM  
Not that I support NOM, but they are seeking legal action for violating confidentiality clauses in the defector's contract.
/Trollin trollin trollin
 
2011-04-19 02:29:56 PM  
Didn't they claim he was a part-time bus driver?
 
2011-04-19 02:30:24 PM  

DubyaHater: Not that I support NOM, but they are seeking legal action for violating confidentiality clauses in the defector's contract.
/Trollin trollin trollin


I wonder what he posted that they are considering confidential?
 
2011-04-19 02:30:26 PM  
"reconsiders position"

Sorry, that made me giggle.
 
2011-04-19 02:30:31 PM  
I'm sure all republicans are to blame for this outrage!

/amiright?
 
2011-04-19 02:31:12 PM  

Barbigazi: And then once the pants are off...lets just say if this stall is rockin' don't come a knockin'.

NOM, NOM, NOM
 
2011-04-19 02:31:24 PM  
It's funny how this is all about contracts yet NOM doesn't want consenting adults to have the ability to enter into a specific kind of contract.
 
2011-04-19 02:32:12 PM  

DubyaHater: Not that I support NOM, but they are seeking legal action for violating confidentiality clauses in the defector's contract.
/Trollin trollin trollin


I was thinking the same thing... a contract is a contract. When someone violates a contract, you sue them if they won't come into compliance. Objectionable though they may be, IF the NOM isn't doing anything illegal then they should have standing.

However, if he's whistleblowing then there are protections unique to that.
 
2011-04-19 02:32:31 PM  
Publicly, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has said they're not worried about Louis Marinelli -- the former employee who defected from the group and changed his viewpoint on same-sex marriage

It's nice and all he changed his individual viewpoint but that's not the point. The point is that any of these people think their individual viewpoints matter. They don't. Whether he, I, they or anyone else thinks there should be same sex marriages or not who the hell are any of us to tell other people who they can and cannot marry.

I think you should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex. But who the hell am I to tell you who you can marry?
 
2011-04-19 02:32:34 PM  
I have no dog in this fight, but the threat of litigation issue here is not about switching sides, as the subby would lead us to believe, but reading the article it appears to be about not abiding by the non-disclosure agreement he signed as a condition of employment.
 
2011-04-19 02:32:43 PM  

They_no_kill_BakBak: DubyaHater: Not that I support NOM, but they are seeking legal action for violating confidentiality clauses in the defector's contract.
/Trollin trollin trollin

I wonder what he posted that they are considering confidential?


Video of gay sex amongst the male NOM members?
 
2011-04-19 02:32:47 PM  
You don't have to sue to get his pants off.
 
2011-04-19 02:32:56 PM  

Weaver95: the religious right does NOT like apostate traitors. they'll destroy the guy and not think twice.


FTFY
 
2011-04-19 02:33:34 PM  
The Christian-conservative activist crowd is secretly weasely, underhanded and repulsive? You don't say?
 
2011-04-19 02:33:57 PM  
I'm so sad that the acronym is wasted on this group
 
2011-04-19 02:34:17 PM  

DubyaHater: Video of gay sex amongst the male NOM members?


BO-RINGGGG!
 
2011-04-19 02:36:22 PM  
i52.tinypic.com

DO YOU SEE THE LIGHT?!?!
 
2011-04-19 02:37:45 PM  

tyrajam: "reconsiders position"

Sorry, that made me giggle.


All the while you are staring into the abyss, it is staring into you as well.
 
2011-04-19 02:39:42 PM  
Being that he doesn't deny the meat of the accusation (contractual breach) I think he's going to lose if they take him to court. It seems like he would have brought that up first when asked to reply if it was indeed the case, unless he's exposing fraud or crimes then he can get a whistleblower kind of protection.

It's telling that the conservative-often in my experience the first to try and sideline an issue- is sounding pretty level about it and the contractor is appealing to pathos.
 
2011-04-19 02:40:16 PM  
What the fark is wrong with these people, that they are so obsessed with gays and what they do? I'M gay, and I don't think about it nearly as much as the Jesus freaks do. I just don't understand why they spend so much of their lives hating something that, in theory, shouldn't affect them at all. Is it just a desire to be cruel to a group that they feel is an easy target? Is it something about their OWN sexuality they're afraid of? I suspect it's a mix of the two. Whatever the reason,they're farking insane and clearly a danger not only to gays and lesbians, but to anybody who opposes their desire to create a theocracy and impose their religious views on everyone.
 
2011-04-19 02:40:29 PM  
I thought all this guy said was, "My bad, changed my mind, gays can be married," it didn't seem like he was really burning any bridges on the way out. Can anyone less lazy than me provide some info on what sort of things he's said about NOM that would possibly violate a non-disclosure agreement?
 
2011-04-19 02:41:37 PM  

factoryconnection: DubyaHater: Video of gay sex amongst the male NOM members?

BO-RINGGGG!


Have you seen the female members?

prideinutah.com
 
2011-04-19 02:42:48 PM  

Weaver95: the religious right does NOT like apostate traitors. they'll destroy the guy and not think twice.


Or they'll perform some rite to remove your emotions and your ability to dream.

/Enchantment?
 
2011-04-19 02:43:07 PM  
I may get flamed for saying this, but if the guy signed a confidentiality agreement then violated it, the group should sue him for breach of contract. If they let it slide, it would make future enforcement more difficult if somebody makes a more damaging breach in the future.
 
2011-04-19 02:44:53 PM  

MechaDupek: I'm sure all republicans are to blame for this outrage!

/amiright?


I was reading the well-reasoned, controlled comments beneath the article and it got me wondering, why do I go to Fark, again? Then I read this and wondered more.
 
2011-04-19 02:46:41 PM  

Barbigazi: Have you seen the female members?


austinpowersfancydress.org
 
2011-04-19 02:47:47 PM  
I'm never going to be able to take an organization seriously that calls itself NOM. Ever.
 
2011-04-19 02:52:25 PM  

RLupin: What the fark is wrong with these people, that they are so obsessed with gays and what they do? I'M gay, and I don't think about it nearly as much as the Jesus freaks do. I just don't understand why they spend so much of their lives hating something that, in theory, shouldn't affect them at all. Is it just a desire to be cruel to a group that they feel is an easy target? Is it something about their OWN sexuality they're afraid of? I suspect it's a mix of the two. Whatever the reason,they're farking insane and clearly a danger not only to gays and lesbians, but to anybody who opposes their desire to create a theocracy and impose their religious views on everyone.


You're gay. That's what wrong. Being gay is wrong. Wrong I tell you.

/ever notice how those loudest against gayness are closet gayerers?
 
2011-04-19 02:53:02 PM  
Thank God for organizations like this that are brave, bold, and strong enough to stand up against the onslaught of homosexual rights being thrust upon the rest of us like a hot, throbbing...wait...where was I?
 
2011-04-19 02:53:09 PM  
I am against what NOM stands for but they are in the right here (assuming that he is actually breaching the contract).

Of course, this all begs the questions: Why do they need a confidentiality agreement? What are they discussing or planning that they are ashamed of or that they know will bring them negative publicity?
 
2011-04-19 02:53:20 PM  
I think this would fall under the whistle-blower legal protections. In any event, they'll threaten to sue, but won't. But they're just blowing smoke. If they did sue, his message would only get out there more; and it would get picked up by even more papers. They definitely wouldn't want that PR battle; they'd loose. But then again, they're idiots, and they probably don't know the first thing about PR.
 
2011-04-19 02:55:32 PM  

Mensan: I may get flamed for saying this, but if the guy signed a confidentiality agreement then violated it, the group should sue him for breach of contract. If they let it slide, it would make future enforcement more difficult if somebody makes a more damaging breach in the future.


Many such agreements are void or voidable as a violation of public policy. The agreement in question isn't in TFA, but there are quite often ways around those clauses.
 
2011-04-19 02:55:43 PM  
aedude01: and they probably don't know the first thing about PR.

relations are fine provided they're hetero
 
2011-04-19 02:57:09 PM  

Mensan: I may get flamed for saying this, but if the guy signed a confidentiality agreement then violated it, the group should sue him for breach of contract. If they let it slide, it would make future enforcement more difficult if somebody makes a more damaging breach in the future.


Considering how badly these idiots have been managing their own finances and organization - it wouldn't surprise me in the least that they forgot confidentiality agreements as well.
 
2011-04-19 02:58:00 PM  

Barbigazi: factoryconnection: DubyaHater: Video of gay sex amongst the male NOM members?

BO-RINGGGG!

Have you seen the female members?


That pic looks more like a case of inter-species dating than gay sex.
 
2011-04-19 02:58:18 PM  
NOM is the organization that was trying to organize a M4M march, right? Man, bigots are really bad at acronyms.
 
2011-04-19 02:58:19 PM  

jackiepaper: Many such agreements are void or voidable as a violation of public policy. The agreement in question isn't in TFA, but there are quite often ways around those clauses.



Off topic, but what is TFA?
 
2011-04-19 02:59:49 PM  

Charlie Chingas: RLupin: What the fark is wrong with these people, that they are so obsessed with gays and what they do? I'M gay, and I don't think about it nearly as much as the Jesus freaks do. I just don't understand why they spend so much of their lives hating something that, in theory, shouldn't affect them at all. Is it just a desire to be cruel to a group that they feel is an easy target? Is it something about their OWN sexuality they're afraid of? I suspect it's a mix of the two. Whatever the reason,they're farking insane and clearly a danger not only to gays and lesbians, but to anybody who opposes their desire to create a theocracy and impose their religious views on everyone.

You're gay. That's what wrong. Being gay is wrong. Wrong I tell you.

/ever notice how those loudest against gayness are closet gayerers?


And that fat cow Gallagher is just bitterly angry that all the big muscular men at the Pride Parade don't want to ravish her.
 
2011-04-19 03:00:20 PM  

Mensan: I may get flamed for saying this, but if the guy signed a confidentiality agreement then violated it, the group should sue him for breach of contract. If they let it slide, it would make future enforcement more difficult if somebody makes a more damaging breach in the future.


On top of that, they are being relatively pleasant about it too, making requests that he fix things to avoid litigation and giving him some time to do it.

/Putting the "civil" in civil court
 
2011-04-19 03:00:59 PM  
After all he signed a non disclosure agreement in his contract. However: A contract is a contract is a contract (but only between Ferengi)

Let's have a little perspective here.
 
2011-04-19 03:01:03 PM  
whats that old adage, you become the thing you hate the most.
 
2011-04-19 03:03:26 PM  
Nonstory. Breach of contract. I agree NOM is insane and dangerous, but he DID sign a NDA.
 
2011-04-19 03:03:46 PM  

Skyred: jackiepaper: Many such agreements are void or voidable as a violation of public policy. The agreement in question isn't in TFA, but there are quite often ways around those clauses.


Off topic, but what is TFA?


RTFM

//Nevermind, surprisingly not actually in the FARQ
//The Farking Article
 
2011-04-19 03:04:55 PM  

EleventyOne: whats that old adage, you become the thing you hate the most.


*shudders*

I hate smelly vaginas...
 
Displayed 50 of 138 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report