ADVERTISEMENT

Questions for Lawyers and Folk

1. - Good question

The right to define private civil actions is expressly prohibited from local government unless authorized by statute. The Indiana Civil Rights Law, however, expressly provides for local government to pass their own civil rights ordinances and create their own commissions, so long as they do not conflict with the state law. Local complaints are expressly allowed to be appealed to state court (or taken their originally if both parties agree).

I'm not a civil rights attorney, as I said, but that seems to be the explanation. All I know is, browsing through the case law, these cases definitely exist.

goat
 
ahhh...I see....so you want gay people to remain in the closet


so they shouldn't, for example, go to a florist shop, holding hands, and tell the proprietor that they want to order flowers for their wedding. Should heterosexual couples also not go into florist shops together, holding hands?
 
firms (and solos) all operate in a variety of ways


Most firms these days will consider flat free arrangements, with some more receptive than others. It also depends on the nature of the work, particularly the level of uncertainty as to how much of the attorney's time will be necessary. Some firms also have more than one billing rate for each attorney, with the applicable rate varying based on the nature of the work. Also, most firms have flexibility in their billing rates, particularly for attorneys that are not being fully utilized. Some will even agree to a variety of discounts, even including prompt payment discounts.

On the other hand, while clients can often negotiate discounted rates, I'm not convinced it always makes sense for them to do so. For example, I am aware of certain entities that will only pay $X an hour for certain work. Now, they might be able to get a highly regarded firm to take on the work at that rate, guess which attorneys are typically going to be doing 99% of it? Yep, the youngest associate, who is right out of law school. In fact, the client might end up paying more than they would have by allowing an experienced attorney to bill at their regular rate.
 
Then they should be charged more

For eating at a restaurant since it takes a lot longer to gum the food. I do find it funny during tourist season in FL where my parents live the have separate menus for the locals at a lot of places.
 
You are half right.

The First Amendment doesn't protect behavior from laws of general application on religious grounds, which is why RFRA came along in the first place. So in this case, it's RFRA vs. Hobart Ordinance, and the First Amendment isn't in play.

goat
 
Was Looking for Something Less Lawyeresque, But Thanks

My "point" - to the extent I have one yet - is that there appear to be two, umm, let's use the term "interests" in conflict here, and the argument about the proper "balance" seems unbalanced.

One - practice of religion - is addressed/protected "directly" in the federal Constitution and (for now) a state law.
The other - sexual orientation - is not addressed/protected in the federal Constitution (at least not directly) or by a state law, but is addressed/protected in a local ordinance.

The bulk of public "support" seems to be for the "lesser" "legal" interest, non-Constitutional interest.

This might cause one to ponder the reason the Founding Fathers protected religion in the first place, re-visiting the "need" (if that's the rightr word) for such protection, if any, and how a social/sexual "interest" has overtaken a social/religious interest in the modern zeitgeist.

Ponder..

ponder..

ponder...
 
Well, if you want to get philosophical...

Remember there are two religion clauses in the First Amendment. The Free Exercise clause is largely to protect religion from government, but the Establishment clause is also about protecting the government from religion. And protecting minorities (to the extent that a particular minority is one we "want" to protect) is one of the overarching themes of the way our government is structured. Preventing a tyranny of the majority is an important goal of the Constitution. So while I would agree that sexual orientation is not a specific interest that is protected by the Constitution, I would argue that protecting LGBT citizens is simply an extension of one of the core concepts of limited Constitutional government.

goat
 
A simple point that left wing lawyers here and on TV ignore

IRFRA protects the "exercise of religion". To read some of the legal posts here, and how some of the so-called legal experts on TV interpret this, they would have us believe that serving pizza in a restaurant is an exercise of religion. They would have us believe that selling a cake off the shelf over the counter is an exercise of religion. They would have us believe that selling flowers by the phone or over the counter is an exercise of religion. None of that is an exercise of religion. If the lawyer for a business tried to claim those activities as exercising religion, and I represented the gay couple or person, I'd have that lawyer frustrated mumbling under his breath in about 10 minutes. His client would look like a complete ass on cross examination. No judge would say that these activities implicate a religious belief. Claims like this would be what they are, blatant efforts to use religion to discriminate. This is not what RFRA is about. Lawyers who claim otherwise are not only engaged in bad lawyering, but are being intentionally deceptive and dishonest.

Sorry to keep harping on this. But this is infuriating for me. I can give a slight pass to those who are emotional about this but don't know how read or apply law. However there are many who do know how to read and apply law. These are the people who are causing tremendous damage to the process and to people like the family who owns that pizza joint in small town Indiana who will likely go out of business because of all the legal bullshit over a simple legal point.
 
Will never happen

Courts don't hand down advisory rulings about what might happen. Period. You should know this. I covered this early in the discussion about IRFRA. Your and some other's who insist that IRFRA can be used in this manner are just plain wrong.

This also couldn't qualify for Rule 57 releif since there is nothing to be interpreted until some action is taken.
 
We're not ignoring it.

I, at least, have addressed this many, many times. And I don't believe I am the only one.

A RFRA defense will require the defendant to claim that the act in question must itself be a violation of his religious beliefs.

Like you, I also doubt that simply selling something over the counter would qualify. Although I could see a good faith argument in theory, any decent lawyer would ask the business owner if he has checked to make sure every single customer he's served since he's been open is straight, and if not, that should be the end of that argument.

But the law would certainly allow a defendant to make that kind of argument. And your repeated claim that this could only be raised if the defendant were being forced to be an active participant in a wedding contradicts the plain text of the statute.

I am not ignoring this issue. I am addressing it head on and disagreeing with you, and offering actual support for my disagreement.

goat
 
That poor family openly stated that they intend to utilize that law

to not serve gay and lesbian customers. Whether the law truly allows them or not, that's how they interpret it and intend to utilize it. The fact that they may go out of business due to that decision sounds like free market, something I thought you would champion.
 
You haven't been paying attention

Of course the business owners will make that argument right before the judge slams the gavel and rejects the argument.

I'm talking about how IRFRA must work in the real world. You keep stirring the pot with, as you said, what the arguments might be "in theory".
 
Some do.

You should know this.

But that doesn't matter. We're not talking about an advisory opinion here. We're talking about a cause of action explicitly created by statute, which the GA certainly has the authority to do (the Indiana constitution leaves to the GA the power to determine jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts).

Courts will have to interpret what constitutes "likely," of course.
 
That isn't the report I heard

They said they wouldn't cater a wedding. Big difference. A market that includes boycots, harassment, and worse, based on acts bordering on defamation, is not a free market
 
Oh, well, I can explain that.

That's because through many of these arguments, you have presented your claims as necessary interpretations of the law, rather than as "real life effects." I'm disagreeing with your statutory construction, and I have been very clear on that point, as many of my posts have been peppered with statements such as "I agree that in practice, such-and-such is unlikely to happen."
 
Are you talking about the pizza place?

You are correct. They said that they would not deny service to gay customers in their restaurant, but that they would refuse to cater a same-sex wedding.
 
You are forgetting separation of powers.

One of my early big cases was to destroy a statute where the legislature imposed upon the courts a legislative function. Just because the GA thinks it created a case doesn't mean it is case or controversy for the courts.
 
I don't see the difference.

Applying the law in the real world is what I always talked about. Interpreting and applying the law go together.
 
Indiana doesn't have a "case or controversy" requirement.

A quick perusal of the Colorado Constitution suggests that this is an area in which our two states differ dramatically.

I also notice Colorado allows for advisory opinions in certain situations and digitally tease you on this point.
 
Right

If you can interpret the law without applying it to a real case, you must be in school , not in the practice.
 
"Preventing a tyranny of the majority"


That is why I cringe when I here people speak of America as a democracy. We are a Republic to protect the 49% from the majority. The Republicans are looking like fools, they have forgotten the Republic to support what they mistakenly perceive to be the majority. Damn them and their religious piety They have overtaken a party of "what is good for business is good for the nation" in exchange for votes.

This post was edited on 4/1 11:26 PM by Rockport Zebra

This post was edited on 4/1 11:28 PM by Rockport Zebra
 
What happens if they cater a wedding for people who have been. . .

Previously married? Isn't the Bible against divorce?

Can they still refuse to cater a gay wedding even though they've catered a wedding that's between two people who have done something against their religious beliefs. Do you get to pick and choose what religious beliefs are offended?
 
I must have become the most cynical man alive

When I heard last week's story of the radio show interviewing the restaurant owner who said he routinely refuses to serve gays in Indy, I immediately thought it a troll. When I read this story, my first thought was it is someone whose business is in a really small town with few possible gay customers (and even fewer who want pizzas catered to a gay wedding) who is taking a calculated business decision to go public like they did. They expect a backlash, whereupon they can call upon their fellow Christians to save them from the GLBT hoardes.

Believe me, I'm not condoning any threats (or even name calling). But if they did make a business decision to gain this press and become a destination for Christian conservatives, I'm not going to be too sympathetic if it fails.

I guess it shows the lenses we view things through. There used to be a business in town that advertised in the yellow pages with a giant "JESUS IS LORD" banner, and then the business name and phone. Now they may be as sincere as can be, but I would never have used their service. It isn't that I object to their belief. If I go into a business and see a Bible and a daily devotional and John 3:16 on the walls, it doesn't bother me at all. But I don't believe in using religion to sell something. I always suspected they took that opportunity to try to attract business. I just don't buy that concept. I might be wrong, but there is no good way to know.

Maybe I'm wrong about the pizza place. But I don't see why someone would intentionally inflict a self-inflicted wound for a hypothetical scenario. In all likelihood there are not gay weddings in Walkerton (pop 2248) lining up for a pizza reception. So either they genuinely decided to insert themselves into this whirlwind, or they may have made a crass business decision. If it is the former, I do feel sorry for them but wonder if they've been paying attention at all. If it is the latter, then they made a decision and it may not work out.
 
Here's the link

Have can anyone have any respect for the people that reacted to the statement that they wouldn't cater a gay wedding? Okay, so you don't agree with that stance but at least you can disagree in a respectful way. I have no idea whether this is real or not but I don't have a problem with the bakery refusing.

This post was edited on 4/2 8:24 AM by NPT

Hit it
 
You know that answer

Potential client: "What are your rates"
Attorney: "What is your net worth"
Potential client: "$xxxx"
Attorney: "What a coincidence, that's my fee"
Potential client "Can I get that in writing"
Attorney "Sure, but that is drawing up a contract and that costs extra"
Potential client "This sounds like highway robbery"
Attorney "I'd be glad to represent you in a lawsuit for 99.99% of your winnings"

Okay, that last one is true only if it becomes a class action lawsuit. Otherwise there are rules.
 
They naively gave an honest answer to a gotcha question.

The reporter sought them out asked the question thinking that whether they would serve pizza at a same sex wedding was an important issue that needed to be covered. The daughter of the owner answered. They pizza joint didn't "insert" themselves into anything.
 
No, they did not.

They said they'd serve anyone who came in. What they said they would not do is participate as a caterer in a same gender wedding.
 
Ya know iuin 1994 . . . .

I like you and have really enjoyed the discussions we have had. But your post is a shameful example of how the IRFRA discussion has gotten so out of hand and has caused irreparable damage to politics and public discourse. I don't think you intended to misrepresent the facts; but you did. I think you did that because you are unwilling to see the nuance between what you said and what was actually said. I see that as an emotional response. This is the same as the dozens on the Cooler and the millions in the country who have misrepresented IRFRA, what it is and what it means. Their emotions are so wrapped up in these issues that they don't think about anything other than jumping on the emotional band wagon. Worse yet, some of this misrepresentation is intentional and meant only to fan the flames and cause turmoil.
 
Do we know the reporter sought them out?

I have no idea what led a South Bend reporter 20 miles away to a tiny little town. Maybe it was a random item, maybe he had some inkling, or maybe someone suggested he go to that specific location? If it is the latter, could it not have been an "insert". Maybe you have read some story I have not, I have not seen what led that reporter to that business.

I have no idea what will happen, a gofundme account setup for them supposedly already has thousands of dollars in it. A quick Google shows some people saying they will go (when they reopen) to show support. I don't see it as impossible this is a business decision. But if you have some source that they never in any way tipped the media to themselves, then that is different.
 
I don't see why a gay wedding pizza buffet is unlikely...


unless...ALL gays are upwardly mobile professionals with significant disposable incomes and more sophisticated sense of style..

Some gays may be only able to afford the pizza buffet, and this inability of those gays who were discriminated against to buy the catered pizza buffet is potentially harmful to their mental health, sense of self-worth and social status.
 
One more difference between liberal and conservative

You put the burden of proof on me to establish the pizza joint didn't seek out the reporter and I put the burden of proof on you to show they did. I think I am more right than you. This looks to me more like a reporter beating the bushes for a story that isn't there than a small town Pizza joint looking for 15 minutes of fame.
 
Just assume facts on hand then

A member of the owner's family agreed to be interviewed and answer a question that is as politically charged as they come right now. I doubt they didn't realize the firestorm happening. If you think media coverage is high in Colorado, you ought to be in this state. Every radio/tv/newspaper is covering it. Even a station I listen to that seldom mentions news has had stories on this subject.

Honestly, I hope two things happen. I hope they can stay in business and I hope they come to see that gay marriage isn't some great evil. But I suspect if a pizza place in FoCo were to say that old white guys are evil and they would never serve their pizza at a wedding involving one, it would impact your desire to go eat at that restaurant. The fact that there is backlash should not at all come as a surprise. We have a freedom to speak, but is there a law that says you are immune to all consequences of what you say? In Indiana an employee can be fired because their boss doesn't like their facebook post. Is this that much different?

I'll suggest this, if a pizza place had come out squarely against the Iraq War there would have been calls to boycott. Is this any different?

Now again, threats are different. I oppose that greatly, there is no excuse. I also don't like the name calling.
 
Was Hobby Lobby's objection . . .

to including employees' birth control as part of its medical benefits package an exercise of religion?

No matter your answer (exercise/ not exercise) to that question, is there anything that distinguishes Hobby Lobby's objection to including birth control in its medical benefits package from refusing to serve someone, in terms of those activities being an "exercise of religion"? Or are both Hobby Lobby's refusal to include birth control and the shop owners' refusal to sell flowers/pizza/cake the same thing, either (1) an exercise of religion, or (2) an entirely commercial transaction?

BTW, I'm a little confused about your argument about selling pizza or cake being an "exercise of religion"; my understanding of the argument being made is that the exercise of religion is the refusal to sell pizza or cake to someone that the seller considers to be a "sinner", not being engaged in the business of selling any of those products. Does that change your analysis?

BTW2, as far as religion goes, it would be fascinating to see a study comparing the shops owners' refusal to engage in commerce with someone that they consider to be a sinner with the stories in the New Testament regarding how Jesus interacted with the sinners of his day . . . this of course does not bear on the legal discussion above, except perhaps to the extent that one might analyze whether the refusal to serve actually is in keeping with Christian precepts . . . .
 
This family in Walkerton didn't actually have a gay couple come to them.The

truth is they were speaking in hypothetical s. "If we had a gay couple wanting pizza for their wedding". And because of this they have received death threats. Some teacher in a nearby school system twittered she wanted to burn their place down. She even called upon others to come help her. I am not a lawyer,but something stinks to high heaven on this. The Walkerton family said that they would serve pizza to any gay couples who wanted to eat in their restaurant. Their only crime is that they didn't want to contribute to wedding they didn't believe in because of religious reasons. Barack Obama used to have this view too before he became President. He said at one time, "Marriage is between a man and a woman" at Rick Warren's church.
 
The president was wrong

A lot of people before the Loving case was decided believed firmly and passionately that interracial marriage was against their morals. Over time, very few people do. Even a lot of people that once felt that way changed their minds. What was once illegal and thought to be wrong in many states is largely a non-issue today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hoopsdoc1978

Xenophobic Joe

Replies
31
Views
673
The Water Cooler
Courtsensetwo
Courtsensetwo
C

Jan 9th and the COA oral arguments...

Replies
12
Views
573
The Water Cooler
Bowlmania
B
C

So now what for Comer,Jordan and the others?

Replies
489
Views
5K
The Water Cooler
cosmickid
C
P

B1G standings and RPI standings for 4/16...

Replies
0
Views
283
IU Baseball Forum
ptrich
P
MyTeamIsOnTheFloor

Question For Lawyers and Constitutional Scholars

Replies
15
Views
443
The Water Cooler
Sope Creek
S
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back