Ahnuld Better Veto This Atrocity
As if it isn't bad enough that people can already be charged and convicted of a "hate crime," the liberal Brownshirts in the California Legislature are trying to further expand its definition.
A section of the proposed law reads as follows:
Speech alone is not sufficient to support an action brought [under this law] except upon a showing that the speech itself threatens violence against a specific person or group of persons; and the person or group of persons against whom the threat is directed reasonably fears that, because of the speech, violence will be committed against them or their property and that the person threatening violence had the apparent ability to carry out the threat.
Penalties for violating SB 1234 include criminal prosecution and fines of $25,000.
Sponsored by lesbian State Senator Sheila Kuehl, SB 1234 has already been passed by the Senate and could be voted on by the Assembly as soon as today (Wednesday). Opponents of the bill are not optimistic about the Assembly vote and expect the measure to move along to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk for his signature before the end of the month.
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
BK Court Finds Federal DOMA Constitutional
And of all courts, it's a 9th Circuit BK Court. You can bet this puppy is going to be appealed by the anti-family-ites.
Having concluded that DOMA does not require heightened scrutiny because it neither impairs a fundamental right to marry nor discriminates on the basis of sex (in that it applies equally to both sexes), Judge Snyder then addressed whether the law is supported by a rational basis. In finding that it was, Judge Snyder exercised an old-fashioned form of judicial restraint — trusting the legislature's motives. In enacting DOMA, both Congress and President Clinton sought to protect and encourage the role of a traditional family in procreation and child rearing. As President Clinton remarked at the time, "marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, that among other things, is used to bring children into the world." DOMA, Judge Snyder concluded, is reasonably related to that legitimate goal, whether or not it is a perfect fit. Unlike the decisions of Massachusetts's highest court, his opinion is not marked by the second-guessing of legislative reasoning that has become common in the recent trend of judge-made law.
And of all courts, it's a 9th Circuit BK Court. You can bet this puppy is going to be appealed by the anti-family-ites.
Having concluded that DOMA does not require heightened scrutiny because it neither impairs a fundamental right to marry nor discriminates on the basis of sex (in that it applies equally to both sexes), Judge Snyder then addressed whether the law is supported by a rational basis. In finding that it was, Judge Snyder exercised an old-fashioned form of judicial restraint — trusting the legislature's motives. In enacting DOMA, both Congress and President Clinton sought to protect and encourage the role of a traditional family in procreation and child rearing. As President Clinton remarked at the time, "marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, that among other things, is used to bring children into the world." DOMA, Judge Snyder concluded, is reasonably related to that legitimate goal, whether or not it is a perfect fit. Unlike the decisions of Massachusetts's highest court, his opinion is not marked by the second-guessing of legislative reasoning that has become common in the recent trend of judge-made law.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Ethics? What Ethics, Eh?
Canadian lawyers reject two rules that basically would prohibit them from having nookie with clients.
Lawyers attending the Canadian Bar Association's annual meeting were passionate Sunday in their rejection of proposed new rules and guidelines governing sexual relationships with clients.
An overwhelming majority of delegates, including several of the association's provincial chapters, dismissed two resolutions on the delicate issue as paternalistic, stereotypical and vague.
"Who are we to impose a prohibition on falling in love?" Montreal lawyer Chantale Masse asked during the hour-long debate.
Most of the discussion centred on a resolution to completely ban sexual relationships between lawyers and clients.
Another motion, which was also soundly defeated, intended to serve more as a warning to lawyers to steer clear of any romances that could be influenced by an imbalance of power or exploitation.
Canadian lawyers reject two rules that basically would prohibit them from having nookie with clients.
Lawyers attending the Canadian Bar Association's annual meeting were passionate Sunday in their rejection of proposed new rules and guidelines governing sexual relationships with clients.
An overwhelming majority of delegates, including several of the association's provincial chapters, dismissed two resolutions on the delicate issue as paternalistic, stereotypical and vague.
"Who are we to impose a prohibition on falling in love?" Montreal lawyer Chantale Masse asked during the hour-long debate.
Most of the discussion centred on a resolution to completely ban sexual relationships between lawyers and clients.
Another motion, which was also soundly defeated, intended to serve more as a warning to lawyers to steer clear of any romances that could be influenced by an imbalance of power or exploitation.
Sunday, August 15, 2004
The Ongoing Battle
Between the adherants of manna and people of faith. No mention if this city council is aware of the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
CLOVER — Some leaders in this Bible Belt town are saying they’ve had enough of storefront churches popping up downtown and are pushing an ordinance to stop new churches from opening and keep others from expanding.
The town manager here says the churches don’t do much to help breathe life into the town six days a week.
“Storefront churches only generate foot traffic for a few hours on Sunday,” town manager Scott Moulder said.
The intent isn’t geared to restricting churches as much as it is to attracting a variety of businesses, Moulder said
“People are more likely to shop in a particular area where there’s more variety.”
Clover Town Council postponed making a decision on the issue earlier this week and will take the issue up later this year.
Between the adherants of manna and people of faith. No mention if this city council is aware of the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
CLOVER — Some leaders in this Bible Belt town are saying they’ve had enough of storefront churches popping up downtown and are pushing an ordinance to stop new churches from opening and keep others from expanding.
The town manager here says the churches don’t do much to help breathe life into the town six days a week.
“Storefront churches only generate foot traffic for a few hours on Sunday,” town manager Scott Moulder said.
The intent isn’t geared to restricting churches as much as it is to attracting a variety of businesses, Moulder said
“People are more likely to shop in a particular area where there’s more variety.”
Clover Town Council postponed making a decision on the issue earlier this week and will take the issue up later this year.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Void
California Supremes void all the "marriages" authorized by San FranciscoDictator Mayor Gavin Newsome. Next up: whether California's Defense of Marriage Act law is consistent with the state constitution.
California Supremes void all the "marriages" authorized by San Francisco
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
People Who Obviously Have Plenty of Disposable Income and Time on Their Hands
Bay Area liberal leftists prepare to head to New York to protest the GOP convention.
On the night before the convention, some activists will don Mickey Mouse ears and confront Republican delegates as they head into the "Disneyfied" theater district. Throughout the week, others will be shadowing delegates as they party everywhere from the Tavern on the Green restaurant to Tiffany's to a luncheon honoring House Speaker Dennis Hastert's wife at the Central Park Boathouse.
What a bunch of freakin' losers.
Bay Area liberal leftists prepare to head to New York to protest the GOP convention.
On the night before the convention, some activists will don Mickey Mouse ears and confront Republican delegates as they head into the "Disneyfied" theater district. Throughout the week, others will be shadowing delegates as they party everywhere from the Tavern on the Green restaurant to Tiffany's to a luncheon honoring House Speaker Dennis Hastert's wife at the Central Park Boathouse.
What a bunch of freakin' losers.
Monday, August 09, 2004
Chief Justice Thomas?
I like it. I like it a lot. Thomas is "young" (56), a constitutional constructionist (more so than Scalia, who will occasionally traipse into libertarianism), and Catholic. A winning combination if ever there was one.
Clarence Thomas has been interviewed by White House lawyers as a possible choice to be the next chief justice of the United States, says the author of a new biography.
Thomas says he isn't interested but could find it hard to turn down an opportunity to be the first black man to lead the Supreme Court, said biographer Ken Foskett.
"Judging Thomas," out this week from William Morrow, traces Thomas' life from rough beginnings in rural Georgia, through Yale Law School to his life today.
Thomas initially refused Foskett's request for interviews, but later spoke to the author both on and off the record.
Thomas likes NASCAR and football, plays a fierce game of basketball and during the court's summer recess tours the nation in a 40-foot mobile home decorated with orange flames, Foskett wrote.
I like it. I like it a lot. Thomas is "young" (56), a constitutional constructionist (more so than Scalia, who will occasionally traipse into libertarianism), and Catholic. A winning combination if ever there was one.
Clarence Thomas has been interviewed by White House lawyers as a possible choice to be the next chief justice of the United States, says the author of a new biography.
Thomas says he isn't interested but could find it hard to turn down an opportunity to be the first black man to lead the Supreme Court, said biographer Ken Foskett.
"Judging Thomas," out this week from William Morrow, traces Thomas' life from rough beginnings in rural Georgia, through Yale Law School to his life today.
Thomas initially refused Foskett's request for interviews, but later spoke to the author both on and off the record.
Thomas likes NASCAR and football, plays a fierce game of basketball and during the court's summer recess tours the nation in a 40-foot mobile home decorated with orange flames, Foskett wrote.
One of 2 Million Reasons Why I Despise the American Bar Association
And will never become a member of this organization as long as they keep doing garbage like this.
Judges are on the front line of battles over legal rights for same-sex couples and should never belong to an organization that discriminates against gays, supporters of a proposed change to American Bar Association ethics rules argued Friday.
Judges are already prohibited from joining clubs that discriminate based on race or sex. An ABA panel is debating whether to make groups that discriminate against gays off limits as well.
The ABA, the nation's largest lawyers' group with more than 400,000 members, writes conduct rules for judges and lawyers. States and federal courts generally adopt them, with some changes.
It is not known how many judges participate in groups such as the Boy Scouts that have policies against hiring gays or having homosexual leaders, or some veterans groups that restrict membership to heterosexuals.
The ABA held an all-day public hearing Friday on proposed judicial ethics changes during the association's summer meeting, which runs through Tuesday. Rules on gifts judges may accept and judges' involvement in fund-raisers may also be changed. The ABA is not expected to vote on any changes until next year. It would be the first overhaul of the rules in more than a decade, and any changes eventually could affect thousands of judges.
Update: Yet more ABA shenanigans. Now they want to support government sponsored discrimination against religious (i.e., Catholic) hospitals. Jerks.
And will never become a member of this organization as long as they keep doing garbage like this.
Judges are on the front line of battles over legal rights for same-sex couples and should never belong to an organization that discriminates against gays, supporters of a proposed change to American Bar Association ethics rules argued Friday.
Judges are already prohibited from joining clubs that discriminate based on race or sex. An ABA panel is debating whether to make groups that discriminate against gays off limits as well.
The ABA, the nation's largest lawyers' group with more than 400,000 members, writes conduct rules for judges and lawyers. States and federal courts generally adopt them, with some changes.
It is not known how many judges participate in groups such as the Boy Scouts that have policies against hiring gays or having homosexual leaders, or some veterans groups that restrict membership to heterosexuals.
The ABA held an all-day public hearing Friday on proposed judicial ethics changes during the association's summer meeting, which runs through Tuesday. Rules on gifts judges may accept and judges' involvement in fund-raisers may also be changed. The ABA is not expected to vote on any changes until next year. It would be the first overhaul of the rules in more than a decade, and any changes eventually could affect thousands of judges.
Update: Yet more ABA shenanigans. Now they want to support government sponsored discrimination against religious (i.e., Catholic) hospitals. Jerks.
Friday, August 06, 2004
What's in a (Last) Name?
So observes Rich Lowry on the declining number of women who retain their maiden name after getting married. I for one would be interested in seeing what the divorce rate is among couples where the wife chose not to take her husband's last name. To some extent, I would understand if my (hopfully) future wife didn't want to take my last name, especially if her first name was Heidi.
The number of women in the New York Times's wedding announcements keeping their surnames was 2 percent in 1975 and had reached 20 percent by the mid-1980s, according to the Journal study. Then the trend stalled. Among women in the Harvard class of 1980, 44 percent retained their surname, but in the class of 1990, only 32 percent did. According to Massachusetts records, the percentage of surname keepers among college graduates in that state was 23 percent in 1990, 20 percent in 1995 and 17 percent in 2000.
Why? The study's authors write: "Perhaps some women who 'kept' their surnames in the 1980s, during the rapid increase in 'keeping,' did so because of peer pressure, and their counterparts today are freer to make their own choices. Perhaps surname-keeping seems less salient as a way of publicly supporting equality for women than it did in the late 1970s and 1980s. Perhaps a general drift to more conservative social values has made surname-keeping less attractive."
So observes Rich Lowry on the declining number of women who retain their maiden name after getting married. I for one would be interested in seeing what the divorce rate is among couples where the wife chose not to take her husband's last name. To some extent, I would understand if my (hopfully) future wife didn't want to take my last name, especially if her first name was Heidi.
The number of women in the New York Times's wedding announcements keeping their surnames was 2 percent in 1975 and had reached 20 percent by the mid-1980s, according to the Journal study. Then the trend stalled. Among women in the Harvard class of 1980, 44 percent retained their surname, but in the class of 1990, only 32 percent did. According to Massachusetts records, the percentage of surname keepers among college graduates in that state was 23 percent in 1990, 20 percent in 1995 and 17 percent in 2000.
Why? The study's authors write: "Perhaps some women who 'kept' their surnames in the 1980s, during the rapid increase in 'keeping,' did so because of peer pressure, and their counterparts today are freer to make their own choices. Perhaps surname-keeping seems less salient as a way of publicly supporting equality for women than it did in the late 1970s and 1980s. Perhaps a general drift to more conservative social values has made surname-keeping less attractive."
White House Promises Support to Maine Catholic Charities
Seems kind of ironic how a non-Catholic President seems to be much more open to defending the religious liberties of a Catholic institution from Secularist Fundamentalism than a certain alleged Catholic presidential candidate would probably be. (BTW, I don't believe the Catholic Charities CEO is the same John Kerry who is running for President. At least I hope not.)
President Bush's top adviser on faith-based programs assured Catholic Charities Maine Thursday that the White House is ready to battle local government when it comes to funding religious groups. Catholic Charities, the social-service arm of the Roman Catholic Church and one of Maine's largest such organizations, is barred from receiving certain federal funds from the city of Portland unless it provides some benefits to same-sex or unmarried partners of employees.
(...)
"We don't have to be concerned about the fairness with which we treat religious and religiously sponsored organizations. That's because we have one rule that applies to everybody: You can't practice discrimination," said Cloutier, who was mayor when Catholic Charities sued the city in March 2003, charging religious discrimination.
Sigh...we are inching ever closer to having government run churches, a-la-Communist China.
Seems kind of ironic how a non-Catholic President seems to be much more open to defending the religious liberties of a Catholic institution from Secularist Fundamentalism than a certain alleged Catholic presidential candidate would probably be. (BTW, I don't believe the Catholic Charities CEO is the same John Kerry who is running for President. At least I hope not.)
President Bush's top adviser on faith-based programs assured Catholic Charities Maine Thursday that the White House is ready to battle local government when it comes to funding religious groups. Catholic Charities, the social-service arm of the Roman Catholic Church and one of Maine's largest such organizations, is barred from receiving certain federal funds from the city of Portland unless it provides some benefits to same-sex or unmarried partners of employees.
(...)
"We don't have to be concerned about the fairness with which we treat religious and religiously sponsored organizations. That's because we have one rule that applies to everybody: You can't practice discrimination," said Cloutier, who was mayor when Catholic Charities sued the city in March 2003, charging religious discrimination.
Sigh...we are inching ever closer to having government run churches, a-la-Communist China.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Don't All Property Sellers Carry Them?
Remember: We will not racially profile Middle Eastern Muslim males carrying handguns, knives and syringes, even though they're the only ones who have committed acts of terrorism on airplanes. It just wouldn't be right to do so...
A man pleaded not guilty Monday to knowingly attempting to board a plane with a loaded handgun, folding knife, and 10 syringes in his carry-on bag.
Ali Reza Khatami, 65, was arrested June 24 when the .38-caliber pistol and 3.5-inch knife were found during a security screening, Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Staples said. He had been preparing to board a United Airlines flight to Reagan National Airport in Washington, D.C.
Defense attorney Ben Wasserman said at Khatami's bail hearing last month that his client had forgotten he was carrying the weapons. He said his client was on his way to Virginia to sell some property.
Khatami told authorities he had planned to put the gun and knife in his bag to take them to a safe in his garage, but didn't remember. Then he planned to leave them at his son's house, he said, but he was in such a rush that he forgot again.
(...)
Magistrate Judge Marc Goldman agreed to release Khatami on $100,000 bail, saying he was not convinced that Khatami intended to take the weapons on the plane.
Remember: We will not racially profile Middle Eastern Muslim males carrying handguns, knives and syringes, even though they're the only ones who have committed acts of terrorism on airplanes. It just wouldn't be right to do so...
A man pleaded not guilty Monday to knowingly attempting to board a plane with a loaded handgun, folding knife, and 10 syringes in his carry-on bag.
Ali Reza Khatami, 65, was arrested June 24 when the .38-caliber pistol and 3.5-inch knife were found during a security screening, Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Staples said. He had been preparing to board a United Airlines flight to Reagan National Airport in Washington, D.C.
Defense attorney Ben Wasserman said at Khatami's bail hearing last month that his client had forgotten he was carrying the weapons. He said his client was on his way to Virginia to sell some property.
Khatami told authorities he had planned to put the gun and knife in his bag to take them to a safe in his garage, but didn't remember. Then he planned to leave them at his son's house, he said, but he was in such a rush that he forgot again.
(...)
Magistrate Judge Marc Goldman agreed to release Khatami on $100,000 bail, saying he was not convinced that Khatami intended to take the weapons on the plane.
Thou Shall Not Eat The Other White Meat
Even though she should win, I've got the strangest feeling that she isn't.
A Central Florida woman was fired from her job after eating "unclean" meat and violating a reported company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises, according to Local 6 News.
Lina Morales was hired as an administrative assistant at Rising Star -- a Central Florida telecommunications company with strong Muslim ties, Local 6 News reported.
However, 10 months after being hired by Rising Star, religious differences led to her termination.
Morales, who is Catholic, was warned about eating pizza with meat the Muslim faith considered "unclean," Local 6 News reported. She was then fired for eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, according to the report.
"Are you telling me they fired you because you had something with ham on it?" Local 6 News reporter Mike Holfeld asked.
"Yes," Morales said.
Holfeld asked, "A pizza and a BLT sandwich?"
"Yes," Morales said.
Local 6 News obtained the termination letter that states she was fired for refusing to comply with company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises.
However, by the company's own admission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that policy is not written, Local 6 News reported.
"Did you ever sign to or agree to anything that said I will not eat pork?" Holfeld asked Morales.
"Never," Morales said. "When I got hired there, they said we don't care what religion you are."
Even though she should win, I've got the strangest feeling that she isn't.
A Central Florida woman was fired from her job after eating "unclean" meat and violating a reported company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises, according to Local 6 News.
Lina Morales was hired as an administrative assistant at Rising Star -- a Central Florida telecommunications company with strong Muslim ties, Local 6 News reported.
However, 10 months after being hired by Rising Star, religious differences led to her termination.
Morales, who is Catholic, was warned about eating pizza with meat the Muslim faith considered "unclean," Local 6 News reported. She was then fired for eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, according to the report.
"Are you telling me they fired you because you had something with ham on it?" Local 6 News reporter Mike Holfeld asked.
"Yes," Morales said.
Holfeld asked, "A pizza and a BLT sandwich?"
"Yes," Morales said.
Local 6 News obtained the termination letter that states she was fired for refusing to comply with company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises.
However, by the company's own admission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that policy is not written, Local 6 News reported.
"Did you ever sign to or agree to anything that said I will not eat pork?" Holfeld asked Morales.
"Never," Morales said. "When I got hired there, they said we don't care what religion you are."
Sunday, August 01, 2004
Boob Gets Bounced Off Plane
Leave it to the ACLU, of course, to argue that people have a "right" to wear obnoxious clothing on commercial flights.
A couple returning home from a Costa Rican vacation was ejected from an American Airlines flight because the man was wearing a T-shirt depicting a bare breast.
Oscar Arela and his girlfriend, Tala Tow, were removed from Flight 952 on Saturday after he refused to change the shirt or turn it inside out at Miami International Airport. The flight left 90 minutes late without them.
The couple, making a connecting flight from Costa Rica, said nobody on the earlier flight objected to the shirt and claimed the airline violated their constitutional right to free speech.
"It's a picture of a man and woman, and the woman's breast is showing," Tow said. "The flight attendant basically walked up to us and yelled, 'You have to take off that shirt right now.'"
American spokesman Tim Wagner said Sunday that crew members acted properly.
"The description I heard was a picture of a graphic of a naked man and woman performing a sexual act," he said. "We as an airline are in the service business, and we have the same latitude as a restaurant that says proper attire is required."
Leave it to the ACLU, of course, to argue that people have a "right" to wear obnoxious clothing on commercial flights.
A couple returning home from a Costa Rican vacation was ejected from an American Airlines flight because the man was wearing a T-shirt depicting a bare breast.
Oscar Arela and his girlfriend, Tala Tow, were removed from Flight 952 on Saturday after he refused to change the shirt or turn it inside out at Miami International Airport. The flight left 90 minutes late without them.
The couple, making a connecting flight from Costa Rica, said nobody on the earlier flight objected to the shirt and claimed the airline violated their constitutional right to free speech.
"It's a picture of a man and woman, and the woman's breast is showing," Tow said. "The flight attendant basically walked up to us and yelled, 'You have to take off that shirt right now.'"
American spokesman Tim Wagner said Sunday that crew members acted properly.
"The description I heard was a picture of a graphic of a naked man and woman performing a sexual act," he said. "We as an airline are in the service business, and we have the same latitude as a restaurant that says proper attire is required."
Tuh-rayza Wants to Be Andrew Sullivan's Mommie
Borrowing from Mark Shea, 'Rats affirm their belief that there is nothing more glorious and holy in this world than homosexuality. Plus, the actor formerly known as Bennifer confirms he has the intellectual capacity of a door knob.
"If nothing else, you will have a mom in the White House," Teresa Heinz Kerry said before the packed hotel room of homosexual delegates and advocates.
"You're pushing the envelope, and we, as a country, have to respond with policies and cultural acceptance," said Mrs. Kerry, wife of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry.
Dignity and respect are paramount qualities, she said. If any of the Kerry children were to say they were homosexual and wanted to marry their partner, she said, "I would ... share my joy and my pride with all my friends," just as if they were marrying someone of the opposite sex.
One of her better-known qualities, Mrs. Kerry added, is "that I like to nurture" people, and family members and friends sometimes call her "Dr. T" or "Momma T." As she departed, the crowd chanted, "Momma T, Momma T!"
Boston-born Mr. Affleck joked about his famous marriage woes, but quickly attacked political efforts to block same-sex "marriage." "As somebody, to be perfectly frank, who has enough trouble figuring out who to get married [to], I don't need the state or federal government telling me who I can or can't marry," said the star of "Good Will Hunting" and "Armageddon."
Borrowing from Mark Shea, 'Rats affirm their belief that there is nothing more glorious and holy in this world than homosexuality. Plus, the actor formerly known as Bennifer confirms he has the intellectual capacity of a door knob.
"If nothing else, you will have a mom in the White House," Teresa Heinz Kerry said before the packed hotel room of homosexual delegates and advocates.
"You're pushing the envelope, and we, as a country, have to respond with policies and cultural acceptance," said Mrs. Kerry, wife of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry.
Dignity and respect are paramount qualities, she said. If any of the Kerry children were to say they were homosexual and wanted to marry their partner, she said, "I would ... share my joy and my pride with all my friends," just as if they were marrying someone of the opposite sex.
One of her better-known qualities, Mrs. Kerry added, is "that I like to nurture" people, and family members and friends sometimes call her "Dr. T" or "Momma T." As she departed, the crowd chanted, "Momma T, Momma T!"
Boston-born Mr. Affleck joked about his famous marriage woes, but quickly attacked political efforts to block same-sex "marriage." "As somebody, to be perfectly frank, who has enough trouble figuring out who to get married [to], I don't need the state or federal government telling me who I can or can't marry," said the star of "Good Will Hunting" and "Armageddon."
No Pets, Food or Christians Allowed in the Library
I'd like to believe that this incident in the Bay Area is an aberration, but quite frankly, it's about par for the course here.
A Christian ministry filed a federal civil rights lawsuit after being barred from meeting at a library due to the facility's policy of forbidding use for "religious purposes."
"The library flagrantly violated the ministry's constitutional rights," said Joshua Carden, counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which brought the suit against the Contra Costa County, Calif., Board of Supervisors and several library officials on behalf of Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries.
"It's unbelievable that, after years of equal access litigation in this country, a library would exclude Christians from a public forum," Carden said.
Hattie Hopkins, leader of Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries, a Christian outreach ministry based in Sacramento, asked her coordinator to reserve a free public meeting room at the library branch in Antioch for May 29 and July 31.
I'd like to believe that this incident in the Bay Area is an aberration, but quite frankly, it's about par for the course here.
A Christian ministry filed a federal civil rights lawsuit after being barred from meeting at a library due to the facility's policy of forbidding use for "religious purposes."
"The library flagrantly violated the ministry's constitutional rights," said Joshua Carden, counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which brought the suit against the Contra Costa County, Calif., Board of Supervisors and several library officials on behalf of Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries.
"It's unbelievable that, after years of equal access litigation in this country, a library would exclude Christians from a public forum," Carden said.
Hattie Hopkins, leader of Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries, a Christian outreach ministry based in Sacramento, asked her coordinator to reserve a free public meeting room at the library branch in Antioch for May 29 and July 31.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Three More Weeks
Until my brief tour with the firm from Hell is finally over. On the bright side, my soon to be ex-boss will be gone on vacation for two of my final three weeks. Seeing as how I'm probably not going to have much to do, this might actually be one of those rare times in life where someone will be paying me to find another job. At the very least, I should be able to start writing more 'blog entries on a consistent daily basis.
Until my brief tour with the firm from Hell is finally over. On the bright side, my soon to be ex-boss will be gone on vacation for two of my final three weeks. Seeing as how I'm probably not going to have much to do, this might actually be one of those rare times in life where someone will be paying me to find another job. At the very least, I should be able to start writing more 'blog entries on a consistent daily basis.
Saturday, June 26, 2004
Counting the Days
Well, I've made a decision. In roughly three, maybe four, weeks I will be giving notice of my resignation at the law firm I have been an associate at for the last couple of months. If this was a job that I sort of liked, I wouldn't mind that I'm struggling learning how to do it or that my boss tends to be incomprehensible and somewhat of a condescending a-hole. The fact of the matter, though, is that I'm not well suited for the advesarial nature of civil litigation and all the petty games that seem to go hand and foot with it. Of course, if the firm I am currently at only did litigation in matters related to religious liberty or defense of the unborn, things would probably be different. But, that's not what it does (not even close) and frankly I'm tired of physically being sick every morning because I don't want to go to the office. Fortunately, I'm not in a position where I absolutely need a paying job, and can actually afford to look for other opportunities. Such is the benefit of having a supportive family.
Well, I've made a decision. In roughly three, maybe four, weeks I will be giving notice of my resignation at the law firm I have been an associate at for the last couple of months. If this was a job that I sort of liked, I wouldn't mind that I'm struggling learning how to do it or that my boss tends to be incomprehensible and somewhat of a condescending a-hole. The fact of the matter, though, is that I'm not well suited for the advesarial nature of civil litigation and all the petty games that seem to go hand and foot with it. Of course, if the firm I am currently at only did litigation in matters related to religious liberty or defense of the unborn, things would probably be different. But, that's not what it does (not even close) and frankly I'm tired of physically being sick every morning because I don't want to go to the office. Fortunately, I'm not in a position where I absolutely need a paying job, and can actually afford to look for other opportunities. Such is the benefit of having a supportive family.
Monday, June 07, 2004
I Hate Civil Litigation
You know what? Maritime law firms are basically personal injury/civil litiation firms. The only substantive difference is that a lot of slip and fall cases that happen out on the water or on boats will often fall under the jurisdiction of federal law (i.e., the Jones Act). Anyway, I'm one month into my new job and I already want to quit. The attorney who hired me is ridiculous. He likes making what I think to be needless motions on cases, and he's making me do all these last minute document drafts with little or no guidance. (It'd be nice to have some details about the situation you want to make an objection or motion to. I'm not a freakin' mind reader). And then to top it off, the guy makes these irritatingly condescending remarks whenever I give him something that might have a slight mistake on it that he had a hand in putting there. (Boss: "Why'd you put the wrong case number on these pleadings? This isn't the case we want to dismiss? Why didn't you know it was the wrong case number?" Me in my head: Because the effin' drafts you wrote and gave me to clean up had it on there already!)
If it weren't for the fact that I'm looking for some practical litigation experience (it seems the bulk of civil litigation deals with discovery and motions) I tell ya I'd quit tomorrow. As it stands, I'm giving myself a two month window to see how much more I can stand, and also to teach myself how to write wills and trusts. I'm still looking to have my own practice, and although I'd like try to take on a some employment discrimination cases, I think estate planning may be better for my overall health and mental well being.
You know what? Maritime law firms are basically personal injury/civil litiation firms. The only substantive difference is that a lot of slip and fall cases that happen out on the water or on boats will often fall under the jurisdiction of federal law (i.e., the Jones Act). Anyway, I'm one month into my new job and I already want to quit. The attorney who hired me is ridiculous. He likes making what I think to be needless motions on cases, and he's making me do all these last minute document drafts with little or no guidance. (It'd be nice to have some details about the situation you want to make an objection or motion to. I'm not a freakin' mind reader). And then to top it off, the guy makes these irritatingly condescending remarks whenever I give him something that might have a slight mistake on it that he had a hand in putting there. (Boss: "Why'd you put the wrong case number on these pleadings? This isn't the case we want to dismiss? Why didn't you know it was the wrong case number?" Me in my head: Because the effin' drafts you wrote and gave me to clean up had it on there already!)
If it weren't for the fact that I'm looking for some practical litigation experience (it seems the bulk of civil litigation deals with discovery and motions) I tell ya I'd quit tomorrow. As it stands, I'm giving myself a two month window to see how much more I can stand, and also to teach myself how to write wills and trusts. I'm still looking to have my own practice, and although I'd like try to take on a some employment discrimination cases, I think estate planning may be better for my overall health and mental well being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)