lawyerlarrie tumblr com/post/158741787951/challenge-find-me-one-precedential-case-involving did someone answered this yet?i feel like this is a good opportunity to prove larries wrong bout them saying that it isnt illegal to closet someone against their will
AMAZING. Absolutely fucking amazing. The unmitigated, demented gall of a Larrie asked for PRECEDENT related to celebrity closeting. The sick, twisted gall of these people who are now proposing that Louis may have signed a personal, private contract with Simon Cowell that forces him and his entire family to play along with A FAKE BABY for a fucking year and a half, to say “show me a precedent.” When the only examples she has ever been able to find are completely unrelated to the point she’s trying to make.
You know why there isn’t a goddamn precedent? Because no one has ever been contractually forced by their management or record label to stay in the closet and sign an illegal false birth certificate for a baby who doesn’t exist.
I don’t know how the UK Equality Act substantively differs from other non-discrimination acts. There could be laws in plenty of jurisdictions that would make the sort of thing Larries suggest even more easily fought in the courts than it would be without relying on anti-discrimination legislation.
In fact, I personally don’t think the UK Equality Act is the most compelling reason why the contracts Larries have created, shaped around a need to deny Louis agency for every single choice that Larries don’t like, do not exist. Ahead of the potential discrimination claim, I would put these:
These contracts would be stupid, impractical, and impossible. No contracts include that type of control over someone’s personal life. No record label would use that control to do what Larries say has happened. It’s dumb. As i said, Larries have decided on what the contract would contain based on what they need to pretend Louis did not choose to do. They have NO examples, NO PRECEDENT, of any contract that does anything like that. The closest they can come is to say that contracts that dictate how someone is edited on a reality show would apply to how they behave every day in their personal life, or that contracts to make reasonable PR appearances would be used to force someone to lead an entire fake PR life.
The contract would be legally unenforceable anyway because Louis would have to commit a felony in signing the birth certificate.
Harry and Louis wouldn’t have to take anyone to court over this. They would just come out or refuse to play along and dare Them to sue. Larries think it’s totally reasonable to expect Simon Cowell to take Louis to court for breaking an NDA because of the fucking bears. First off, 1D are too popular for it to be worth it to meaningfully punish them, second off the optics would be FUCKING TERRIBLE.
If it did somehow end up in court, I think unconscionability is a more likely legal argument, largely because the contract terms Larries suggest are SO EXTREME.
But that’s always been the problem with arguing against them. I’ve said this before. No one fucking BOTHERS to actually say “don’t worry, no record label will be able to force you to fake a baby.” No one explains how to get out of a 7 year and counting contract that forces you to have your fake girlfriend in your mother’s wedding. BECAUSE IT DOESN’T FUCKING HAPPEN. So no, shockingly there are no examples of closeted celebrities using the UK Equality Act as far as I know.
So I don’t actually think the UK Equality Act is particularly relevant, although I know there’s been a couple posts from antis about it. I do think it gives a sense of how public opinion might go, I think it’s a possible avenue that could be used. Looking into it a bit, I think there’s definitely some questions about what is considered the workplace or a position of employment. But the indirect discrimination portion would absolutely apply to what Larries say is happening, and probably direct discrimination as well.
Lawyerlarrie has already admitted that she knows jackshit about this type of contract but, as with the nuances of family law in California, she doesn’t let that stop her from speaking authoritatively and even making up quotes that she implies are actual potential contract terms.
Larries try to make it seem like they have precedents by lying about what their own theories entail or creating strawmen to counter. The examples they give are never relevant to the actual problems with the shit they make up. They also lie about and minimize the history of conflict between artists and labels, to make it seem like they have no real examples because artists are simply suffering in silence. When in facts, artists have been extremely vocal in speaking about their record labels and fighting injustice, and often make gains in cases that are decided out of court. When artists speak about being closeted against their will, they talk about pressure, the threat of having opportunities withdrawn, or simply not telling anyone. Never about fucking contracts.
And while they’re making up contracts that can force Louis and his entire family to play along with schemes to ruin his life, they’re out here trying to claim it’s meaningful that there’s no relevant case history of anyone using the UK Equality Act to get out of the utterly stupid and impossible contracts they fucking made up. Stuff like this, using this completely pointless challenge to trick their followers into thinking they’re the ones with precedent on their side, is why they’re manipulative assholes.
Thank you so much to all of you | You’ve made made my time on tumblr wonderful | long may it last | I appreciate and respect you all | I’d kiss and hug you all if I could | here’s my 200+ follow forever: