Don’t we have laws regarding frivolous lawsuits?
Pounded in the class by an action, screenplay by Chuck Tingle.
These days she’d have better luck suing every white person in America.
Why would I want to cosplay as a baboon?
Let’s not kink-shame, now.
The Bible that has been rewritten multiple times to say exactly what the various church authorities want it to say. Some of the early editions included him being a family man. But the story changed, so the story had to change.
Not really a reliable source on such matters.
Hopefully her “case” gets thrown out before it makes it to a courtroom; don’t waste tax payer dollars on something this pointless.
“If your honor finds in favor of the plaintiff, please note that she has worn mixed fabrics every day of this trial and is also in violation of the same sections of the Bible she is using as a basis for her suit.”
Well, that’s a helluva cross to bear.
I wasn’t aware “sin” was something that could be litigated. If so, look out all you stone throwers.
How about calling Him to the stand? That would be a fun swearing in.
And with God as her witness, she is that fool.
What other source do we have for Jesus? The Apocrypha? I don’t think that says he is gay either.
If we are going to read between the lines, you could argue he was in a triad with John and Mary Magdalene, so he could be bi.
So this happened in 2015… Did she win?
Why is she only suing American Gays?
Jingoism? Xenophobia? Or merely a lack of ambition?
Case dismissed for failure to state a claim that can be remedied by the court.
This was 2015; case was dismissed.
Here, the plaintiff does not set forth any factual or legal basis for a federal claim under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Even construing the complaint liberally, it does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting federal question jurisdiction exists in this matter. Nor can the plaintiff plausibly allege that her citizenship is different from the citizenship of each defendant. And she has not asked for any money damages, much less enough to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Therefore, the Court finds subject-matter jurisdiction is not proper in this action pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332.
I would like to report that I have sued this woman to prove the existence of god. If the judge accepts, we’re going to have a 21st century ontological dog and pony show. Just for the lulz. (I love donotpay.com)