when you restrain a person, it doesn't take an exceptional IQ to understand you're doing something against their will.

I don't know why the court reversed their decision.
But I did laugh at the explanation:
I don't think anything happening in a church with some regularity, should thus be expected and accepted.
In fact, the one stating that should not be taken seriously.

amen.

If you can sue a doctor for malpractice, why not an exorcist? Makes sense to me.

Somehow I think this would have gone differently if the person had been 18. As long as the person was under the age of 18, their parents had the final say.

Nice to know if the same person had killed someone, they'd be an adult.

Don't the Pentecostals know that only Catholics can perform exorcisms??!!??

Wow you can use Christianity ( or whatever sect of Bible loving religion this is) as an excuse for anything, maybe I should feign Christianity, I can say I was possessed by a demon and absolve myself through getting it excorised.

So, if they say that when something happens in a church with regularity its ok, does that mean that those priests (you know what priests I am talking about) are not to be held responsible for the trauma they cause to those boys?

I am not saying what they do is ok, but it sounds like it would be under this ruling.

What about her constitutional rights to "Life, Liberty, and Head-spinning-like-a-top?"

I mean, if I want to projectile vomit on a priest, it's my inalienable right to a "pursuit of happiness," is it not?

Damn them and their fascist-police state!