StrangeSox

I have no idea how anyone affords housing in California.

This "rent a DA" to scare people into forking over a bunch of money was pretty awful. Good on the Consumer Finance Protection Board for helping put a stop to this. http://www.philly.com/philly/business/2015..._A__scheme.html

I have heard that same argument made about teachers before.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 1, 2015 -> 06:12 PM) If only the tolerance crowd weren't so damned intolerant of those that disagree with them, some states might not feel compelled to do these things. this has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 02:39 PM) So do you guys look at the recent Israel election and think "oh man that's awesome" Parliamentary coalitions sounds like a blast

If they just want some regular stuff printed, sure they should be served.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 02:23 PM) We're an entrenched two party system. Any candidate with a chance to get elected will work within the existing system. Which is sad. It's a function of the structure of our government.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 02:26 PM) Again, I said in a perfect world. And I acknowledged that we might not be there yet. But I don't think we'll ever go back to that situation, and if a restaurant owner refused to serve blacks, the response would be massive. You can't even tell a racist joke these days without a massive response and boycott. What's a better outcome there: the restaurant goes out of business because of the backlash, or they get sued, pay some damages, and stay open for business? Other than some nutjob KKK-types, who discriminate with a law or without a law, no one is supporting that owner. The best answer is that we keep public accommodation laws because there's no reason to get rid of them and lots of historical reasons to keep them.

This law wasn't about protesters or disruption, it was a response to the Elane photography and the cake baker in Colorado cases.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 01:37 PM) Again, this is exactly what the sit ins were. Black people sitting down at whites only counters just wanting to be served while the businesses refused to do so, while waiting for them to remove the people by force for wanting to buy lunch. And for some reason Jenks thinks we should roll back those protections.

But why? What good does that do for society?

conviction overturned by Italian high court http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/europe/amanda-knox/index.html

Wasn't the Israeli government just caught leaking details of the Iranian negotiations to Congressional Republicans so that they could undermine them? h

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 11:22 AM) I believe that's actually the law in the USA, but not in Europe. (I'm not 100% sure, but I think I read that today) Yep. As a frequent flyer who will grab the first row seats on a Southwest flight if they're available, I've seen this happen several times. One pilot comes out to use the restroom, one of the flight attendants goes into the cockpit and locks the door behind.

well Indiana's pro-bigotry law is markedly different in that it allows for bigotry between private parties. For everything wrong with the federal RFRA, it at least only control interactions with the state. the federal case that provoked the RFRA was Employment v Smith The fun part of the RFRA, which has been touched on in this thread, is that it essentially requires the court to accept any and all "religious objections" or get into the business of courts deciding which religious beliefs are genuine or not.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 02:13 PM) You're suggesting no limits at all? There has to be something, somewhere. Otherwise people would claim religious practice for any act that might violate a law. Speeding? I'm a devote follower of the God of Sound and i'm mandated to travel as closely to the speed of sound as possible. Drugs? I'm a follower of The White Powder Order, which requires me to do 5 bumps every day at work. The list goes on. Wasn't the rfra specifically in response to a court ruling on the use of peyote in religious ceremonies?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 01:11 PM) So you actually can't see where "I don't believe in miscegenation" is going to be the immediate reply with the specific example of this case? Also, you know, the Mormon religion until their tax exempt status was threatened in the 1970's To be fair, Utah just passed a bill expanding protected classes in that state to include lgbt with assistance from the lds church

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 01:07 PM) 1) I said in a perfect world. A world that has progressed, much like ours has. It's not some uncommon thing to expect that some laws won't be necessary anymore. The SC has said as much with issues like affirmative action. 2) I'm not aware of any religion that would deem "being black" something that is an affront or objectionable under that religion. And before we go down the "well but yeah anyone can say their religion is whatever they want it to be" road, the SC has handled that numerous times in the past and rejected those attempts. Let's flip the switch here: a gay person runs a copy shop. A crazy, homophobic anti-gay religious person comes in and wants to order 1000 "death to queers" posters. I think that gay person should be able to say go jump in a lake. I don't think they HAVE to serve them. I don't think they SHOULD serve them. Even without the protection of religious freedom, they should be able to deny that service. If the laws "aren't necessary" anymore because no-one actually wants to discriminate against protected classes, then who cares if the laws are still on the books?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 12:31 PM) It also looks like this law is modeled after a federal law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Fre...Restoration_Act (still applicable at the federal level) which, gasp!, was introduced by Chuck Schumer and signed by President Clinton. The rfra is terrible and gave us the hobby lobby ruling.

Jeremy Clarkson's gone from Top Gear after his latest incident where he verbally and physically assaulted one of the producers. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-26/jere...wed-bbc/6346406 Sad to see a great show end that way, but not much choice when one employee physically assaults another.

QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ Mar 23, 2015 -> 12:58 PM) Ooops http://www.tedcruz.com http://tedcruzforamerica.com/

Fox River?

There's also the consideration that "due process" isn't strictly and exclusively a constitutional concept. If you are a teacher working under a tenure contract, for example, you can only be fired for cause and you must receive due process to show that there is cause. This can be through administrative hearings etc., not through the legal system. I was originally using the term in that broader sense, though constitutional due process should apply as well given the constitutional issues. Public universities are free to set admissions standards, but it doesn't follow that they are then free to accept or expel someone for any reason at all. Think of a government job. Yes, the government can absolutely set professional qualifications, but you cannot be fired or denied a job because of your political/social viewpoints. If you went around shouting racist chants in the workplace, that would be different, but if you kept it to yourself at work and attended KKK rallies at night, you couldn't be fired for it. edit: and just to be clear, I don't think the students are pressing any sort of constitutional violation claims here, even if its pretty clear that that's what the university did.

As someone without a cable/satellite subscription and a big antenna in my attic, this is good news.