Cellphone cheater says Rogers bill outed her

[Lagmonster]

No dogpiling on the fundie. He gets the idea, or rather, he probably doesn't, but everyone else does.

[Molyneux]

That's a nonsensical statement. A crime is by definition the violation of a criminal code. Now in a theocracy, the religious code and the criminal code are one and the same, and while the U.S. might qualify in some sense as a theocracy, one would be hard pressed to define Canada as one.

Just a nitpick, but you most certainly cannot accurately refer to the US as a theocracy. We have a fuckton of religious idiots, but the basis of our government is decidedly secular.

[Night_stalker]

I doubt that she has a good case. She uses her cell phone to call her Boy toy, then acts surprised when her husband gets the bill, and sees a unknown number being called a bunch of times. He does the math, and calls a divorce lawyer. If she really wanted to keep it a secret, she could've just used a email account or even a prepaid phone with a calling card. Rogers may get some bad trash, but I'm sure she will get it worse. Plus, how is Rogers repsonsible for "As a consequence of her husband's said departure, the plaintiff wept uncontrollably at her workplace, did so in the presence of other employees, distracted them, was unfocused and became incapable of performing her employment duties,"? That sounds like her fault for being caught, not their fault for sending the bill to the address that they had on file.

[SCRawl]

I'm coming in late here, but it seems to me that this woman will have a hard time making her case. She can't argue that Rogers ruined her marriage -- she did that. Rogers did help to provide evidence of her activities to the husband, though, apparently without the intent to do so. Assuming she gets a divorce now, I would assume that she will receive terms less favourable to her than if a divorce had happened without knowledge of her infidelities becoming publicly available. I would suggest that she might have some claim upon a share of that difference from Rogers, but nothing more.

[eion]

That's a nonsensical statement. A crime is by definition the violation of a criminal code. Now in a theocracy, the religious code and the criminal code are one and the same, and while the U.S. might qualify in some sense as a theocracy, one would be hard pressed to define Canada as one.

Just a nitpick, but you most certainly cannot accurately refer to the US as a theocracy. We have a fuckton of religious idiots, but the basis of our government is decidedly secular.

A nitpick on your nitpick. It would really depend on how you define "theocracy." Literally it is "Ruled by God." Out of context, phrases like "One Nation Under God" and "In God We Trust" seem to point towards a deity as the ultimate head of government.

I would agree with you that the United States' government and laws are not religiously based; my argument was that in comparison to Canada, we are closer to a theocracy. Certainly not anywhere near as close as a country like Iran, but closer still than Canada, especially when adultery is still a crime in 20 of our 50 states, and certainly more of our populace believe our country is and ought to be a theocracy than do in Canada.

[Master of Ossus]

A nitpick on your nitpick. It would really depend on how you define "theocracy." Literally it is "Ruled by God." Out of context, phrases like "One Nation Under God" and "In God We Trust" seem to point towards a deity as the ultimate head of government.

I would agree with you that the United States' government and laws are not religiously based; my argument was that in comparison to Canada, we are closer to a theocracy. Certainly not anywhere near as close as a country like Iran, but closer still than Canada, especially when adultery is still a crime in 20 of our 50 states, and certainly more of our populace believe our country is and ought to be a theocracy than do in Canada.

I'm sorry, but are you arguing that the only possible basis for a statute criminalizing adultery is God? Seriously?

[eion]

I'm sorry, but are you arguing that the only possible basis for a statute criminalizing adultery is God? Seriously?

Certainly not, but there is a correlation between a strongly conservative Abrahamic society and the criminalization of private sexual behavior.

[Molyneux]

That's a nonsensical statement. A crime is by definition the violation of a criminal code. Now in a theocracy, the religious code and the criminal code are one and the same, and while the U.S. might qualify in some sense as a theocracy, one would be hard pressed to define Canada as one.

Just a nitpick, but you most certainly cannot accurately refer to the US as a theocracy. We have a fuckton of religious idiots, but the basis of our government is decidedly secular.

A nitpick on your nitpick. It would really depend on how you define "theocracy." Literally it is "Ruled by God." Out of context, phrases like "One Nation Under God" and "In God We Trust" seem to point towards a deity as the ultimate head of government.

I would agree with you that the United States' government and laws are not religiously based; my argument was that in comparison to Canada, we are closer to a theocracy. Certainly not anywhere near as close as a country like Iran, but closer still than Canada, especially when adultery is still a crime in 20 of our 50 states, and certainly more of our populace believe our country is and ought to be a theocracy than do in Canada.

A good point.
One can always hope we slide a bit closer towards Canada, rather than the Iran end of the spectrum.

A nitpick on your nitpick. It would really depend on how you define "theocracy." Literally it is "Ruled by God." Out of context, phrases like "One Nation Under God" and "In God We Trust" seem to point towards a deity as the ultimate head of government.

I would agree with you that the United States' government and laws are not religiously based; my argument was that in comparison to Canada, we are closer to a theocracy. Certainly not anywhere near as close as a country like Iran, but closer still than Canada, especially when adultery is still a crime in 20 of our 50 states, and certainly more of our populace believe our country is and ought to be a theocracy than do in Canada.

I'm sorry, but are you arguing that the only possible basis for a statute criminalizing adultery is God? Seriously?

I don't see any real rationale for treating it differently than other cases of breach of contract - except when God is brought into the equation. Do you?