North Carolina Lawmakers Consider Cap on Damages in Adultery Lawsuits

July 9, 2009

  • July 9, 2009 at 12:23 pm
    Rosie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    let me check. oh yes, the north Carolina legislature is in the control of the GOP why am i not surprized they protect their own at the expense of women and the poor :p

  • July 9, 2009 at 12:46 pm
    Anonymous says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The poor? How do you figure?

  • July 9, 2009 at 12:52 pm
    Anonymous says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Or, women, how do you figure?

  • July 9, 2009 at 12:53 pm
    Anonymous says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I can see where you’d say women (although I disagree) but people of all economic brackets cheat…

  • July 9, 2009 at 12:55 pm
    Former Status Quo says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Seriously rosie? How the hell do put a dollar amount on Stolen Affection? What they did is cap a general damage that could be limitless without the cap. Besides, it doesn’t even mention the level of the cap…

    Moreover, notice how there are only about a half a dozen states that don’t limit the cap…

  • July 9, 2009 at 1:00 am
    skidude says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Dumb comment. Discrimination by definition (look it up) is the unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice (pre-judgment). Prejudice has nothing to do with ACTIONS. If folks can’t limit their sexual relations to the person they committed to in marriage, then a lawful penalty has nothing to do with prejudice or discrimination. If more states would impose an economic penalty for adultery, perhaps we would see a trend toward more faithful and moral behavior.
    People that cry discriminaton perhaps just want to have the freedom to live without the obligation to keep commitments and without possibility of legal and economic penalty. I know, someone will whine about my use of “moral arguments”, suggesting some need for separation of church and state. This is a misconstruction of the intent of the church and state issue. The original intent was that the state not be involved in the establishment of organized religion – as was the case in England years ago. Grow up and stop whining about penalties. If you can’t keep commitments, then just keep sucking your thumb and wishing for the days of jr. high to magically return .

  • July 9, 2009 at 1:04 am
    FLAME says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Rosie,

    I can normally tolerate your flame-baiting nonsense because I know you are trying to stir things up with your absurdity. I draw the line at patent lies, though. As a NC resident, I can tell you with great certainty (where did you “check”?) that the democrats control the Governor, Lt. Gov, State Senate (31/19), and State House (68/51). Not that you had any credibility anyway…

  • July 9, 2009 at 1:50 am
    Mrs Dean Wormer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Flame baiting aside (I agree!) what in the world does this article have to do with insurance?!

  • July 9, 2009 at 2:27 am
    Ron says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    To skidude,
    Just to clarify the definition of discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. Notice it does not say anything about “unfair” treatment.
    If you work in insurance you discriminate, just fairly.

  • July 9, 2009 at 5:57 am
    NC Insurance Person says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Rosie saw the R word and immediately started the old Dem diatribe. Yawn. Same old, same old. The article was kind of insurance related. They want to put caps on liability suits. In NC, if you want to play around, you had better file a legal separation form.

  • July 15, 2009 at 9:24 am
    caffiend says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    does this bill specify women or the poor? Adultery is a two way street, and it’s not always the man that is cheating. One notes that either spouse could sue the other for stolen affection, based on this bill.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*