4 ms·

I was commenting on your post which you claimed this had to do with sexual orientation. This has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. If the priest

I was commenting on your post which you claimed this had to do with sexual orientation. This has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. If the priest was straight and been using Tinder instead of Grindr to hookup with woman it wouldn't make a difference to the story. If instead of anything related to sex this had been stealing or something it wouldn't make a difference. That is all I said. You jumped to the conclusion I was implying something I didn't say. You need to be more cautious about properly interpreting other's speech. The fact your are continuing to claim that this had to do with sexual orientation in this post indicates you don't understand what I was saying. The reason this exploded is not because he is gay. There are a lot of gay priests. The next issue is this priest was not just a regular diocesan priest. He was a very prominent priest who was part of the United States bishop's conference. He held a role in misconduct investigations. This makes it a very public (US wide) not just a parish / diocese issue. I am not sure why you are bringing up the state. It makes no sense in any context of what we are talking about. I haven't said anything about the state or legality of this issue.

ashtonkem 5y ago
> I am not sure why you are bringing up the state. It makes no sense in any context of what we are talking about. Because this thread was about whether this creates a tort or not, that’s why mentioning the state is relevant. I’m genuinely confused why you’re confused by this.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  This thread is not about a tort. The article doesn't mention it (to my recollection) and your post didn't either. Can you clarify why you think it does?
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    > Yes, it may be illegal, in civil court. It's the tort of "public disclosure of private facts". Under California law, the public disclosure of private facts is defined as (1) a public disclosure of (2) private facts about an individual (3) that would offend the average person, that (4) was not of legitimate public concern; and (5) where defendant published private facts with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity It’s right there at the top. I’m actually kind of alarmed that you can’t see that.

ashtonkem 5y ago

> I am not sure why you are bringing up the state. It makes no sense in any context of what we are talking about. Because this thread was about whether this creates a tort or not, that’s why mentioning the state is relevant. I’m genuinely confused why you’re confused by this.

_-david-_ 5y ago
This thread is not about a tort. The article doesn't mention it (to my recollection) and your post didn't either. Can you clarify why you think it does?
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > Yes, it may be illegal, in civil court. It's the tort of "public disclosure of private facts". Under California law, the public disclosure of private facts is defined as (1) a public disclosure of (2) private facts about an individual (3) that would offend the average person, that (4) was not of legitimate public concern; and (5) where defendant published private facts with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity It’s right there at the top. I’m actually kind of alarmed that you can’t see that.