Apart from the question of what size business should be considered eligible for "personal religious status" (Macdonalds compared to a Mom and Pop restaurant), I still say there can be legitimacy to discriminating against events rather than persons. As an example, the restaurant in today's email could properly refuse to host that Christian organizations Prayer Breakfast, but not their quarterly business luncheon, just as another restaurant could refuse to host a gay wedding reception but not their gay family reunion dinner.
I have long argued that an important step toward greater police accountability would be to transfer financial responsibility for bad shootings, use of excessive force, and false arrests from the taxpayers to the police themselves. The way to do this would be make the FOP, and not the taxpayers, responsible for carrying liability insurance and paying judgements and settlements. The officers and union members would then have incentives to police themselves (no pun intended) and weed out the few bad actors. As matters stand now, they get a free pass because we taxpayers always pick up the tab. But when an officer violates an individual citizen’s rights, that officer also violates the officer’s duties to the general public to act in accordance with the law. Given that Illinois voters just voted to expand the matters public union members can remove from the ability of citizens to vote on and to expand the scope of collective bargaining rights, though, this is less likely to happen than ever. We have met the enemy and he is us.
“ In May 2020 I wrote a column for the Tribune about how Chicago police Sgt. Khalil Muhammad shot and wounded 18-year-old Ricardo Hayes in an act that Video surveillance from a porch nearby showed clearly was rash, unnecessary and unprovoked.” -- Zorn
Why isn’t this a deprivation of rights issue?
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
SUMMARY:
• Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Every year, I add something new to the personal Christmas playlist, so good timing. I found the song on Spotify too - and a version by David Bazan (never heard of him, either). It's on his album "Dark Sacred Night," which also features "Wish My Kids Were Here," first verse below. It ends happy though. The night turns into morning.
I just want to see my little kids on Christmas
But I'm not so sure that my kids want to see me
They live with their mom in Alabama
And I live with my girlfriend in Nashville, Tennessee
I think that the decision by the restaurant in Richmond was a “sincere expression of sensitivity”, if what you mean by that is, doing whatever it takes to soothe the fragile nerves and oh so delicate sensibilities of anyone who’s minds have been so thoroughly coddled that they basically are unable to function as normal human beings. They may also have the notion of a little tit for tat with things like the Colorado baker and web designer (never mind the obvious false equivocating that that entails, but maybe not so obvious to such feeble minds), but the tell is the crap about feeling “uncomfortable and unsafe”. Personally, I never feel in greater danger than when I have to breathe the same air as someone who doesn’t hold exactly the same views as I do about everything, so kudos to that restaurant for very likely saving the lives of their entire staff.
The issue before the Court regarding provision of service is specifically about the distinction between a generic business (public accommodations) and a commissioned artist; and how that distinction can be made. The uniqueness of the creative process and the product make them different and a representation of the artist. Artists are allowed to choose their customers. No one would argue that a painter or musician can be compelled to create work for Neo-Nazis or Trump. There is no threat to standard services which provide a common product to all customers. The case last year from a baker was based on religious freedom. This case is based on freedom of speech - an artist cannot be compelled to 'speak'.
As to businesses refusing service to organizations or individuals for ideological reasons, there are no federal protections and only limited protections in some states. Again, refusing to host a QAnon luncheon is allowed. Refusing to provide services to a religious organization because of their religious beliefs is prohibited by federal law. Claiming a Muslim group made the staff feel 'uncomfortable or unsafe' because of their beliefs would obviously fail the test.
I wish there was a consistent and broad approach to correcting the incompetence and structural failings of the police administration and the general counsel's office for the city. Both are products of decades of political cronyism and corruption at the expense of efficiency, effectiveness, and professionalism.
I agree with Eric on the incremental improvements in firearms laws. I am completely in favor of the improvement in the 'red flag' portion of the law, but I also think that we need a concerted administrative, training, and budgeting effort to provide for effective enforcement. The FOID card changes are just window dressing. There is no evidence of disproportionate misuse of firearms by 18–21-year-old FOID holders. And even if there were, the exception for active duty under 21-year-olds makes no sense, as they would be equally dangerous and no FOID is required for service issued firearms. Finally, the rest seems to be intentionally overbroad, as if to prepare fodder for a court test.
Lovely song for a dreary Thursday afternoon while we are supporting the NYT Guild strike by avoiding them for 24 hours…off topic, but i wonder if we have bag taxes to encourage us to bring our own bags(which I agree is a good idea) why not a box tax, too, to give us more incentives to shop local and stop ordering online? 🎶🤷🏽♀️🎶☃️
There is no meaningful corollary between Indonesian democracy and parties and the US. Indonesia has been a functioning democratic country for only 23 years. All of the 'secular' parties are dominated by Sunni Muslims and registering as a political party requires stated support for Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, or a tribal religion. 86% of the population is Muslim. All of the religions are predominantly conservative. The country has continuing significant issues with sectarian violence (anti Shia), and violence between Hindus, Buddhist and Muslims. In addition, they have violent separatist groups in Timor, Aceh, and Papua; Islamist revolutionaries; and Communist revolutionaries. They also continue to struggle with the endemic corruption in all areas of government that has carried over from prior government structures and the involvement of the military in politics. Finally, criticism of the government or its founding principles has always been illegal.
re: Knock It Off! The idea is NOT to see who reads a post without a picture, the idea is to see who is susceptible to the implied guilt of not complying with the request and is willing to follow the "leave a word, cut and paste to your own page" directions. It's a variation on passing along negative or bad information without the effort to confirm any of it, and without thought (especially in election cycles). And all probably from the same source(s).
As a US military veteran, 2nd Amendment supporter, conceal carry license holder, NRA member and firearms enthusiast, I am very open to several reasonable restrictions to help prevent firearms from being in the hands of those who are mentally unstable, those who have made verifiable threats of violence, and those with a record of criminal acts, with the appropriate safeguards for due process.
(I would also like to concurrently see consistent application of serious consequences for those who illegally possess, carry, and especially, use firearms in the commission of crimes, with dramatically increased consequences for repeat offenders. Sadly, in Chicago and cities across the US, this is consciously not being done, all under the guise of "social justice", which is on its face patently ironic since blacks are disproportionately the victims of violent firearms crimes.)
One challenging issue, which Eric alluded to, is that there does not seem to be any real definition of what constitutes an assault weapon. When I challenge people who are advocating an assault weapon ban to specifically define an assault weapon, they are generally unable to do so. Some use a description by appearance of any gun that has a military design of stock and trigger guard regardless of how it operates, and I have even heard some define any semi-automatic rifle as an assault weapon. (Elimination of all semi-automatic hunting rifles will invariably result in many hunting animals being injured and escaping to die a slow and agonizing death.)
Many on the left may be surprised to learn that many 2nd Amendment supporters are very open to discussion on finding common ground on reasonable gun restrictions that do not impair the rights of law abiding responsible citizens. But when there are demands for banning of guns without any real definition of the guns to be banned, that is not a discussion we are able to engage in.
Speaking as someone who has decades of experience both defending professional liability insurance claims and suing cops as court-appointed pro bono counsel, I think these counter-arguments are misplaced, or else Mr. Leitschuh misunderstands my proposal: it’s not that each cop carry his own personal liability policy, but that the police union - the FOP - provide the same kind of coverage, and have the same kind of financial responsibility, as the City now does. Any competent liability insurance underwriters should be able to rate the FOP in the same way it rates the City, particularly if the practice were made nationwide to provide a bigger risk pool.
Conversely, if cops wanted to buy their own personal umbrella liability policies, I see no reason why they should not be able to do so through the FOP (police union), which presumably provides all sorts of benefits to its members (or they wouldn’t bother to pay dues). I see no reason why it would be acting any differently from any other membership organization that makes insurance benefits available to its members, from AARP to AAA to bar associations or the AICPA to, indeed, mutual insurance companies like State Farm Mutual.
Yes, anyone can sue virtually anyone in America but the plaintiff must have (a) some sort of legally recognized basis for the claim and (b) facts to support it. Frivolous lawsuits brought without factual or legal support result in adverse judgments against the plaintiff and sanctions against the attorneys who bring them, up to and including having to pay the other side’s legal fees and suspension or disbarment if the attorneys involved. (Some attorneys already specialize in suing cops, by the way, under the civil rights laws that protect all of us against unlawful state action. The good ones don’t take bad cases, and the ones that take bad cases go out of business pretty quickly because they lose them.)
Based on my experience, moreover, the FOP is not entirely an innocent player, as it negotiates special rules to protect cops that encourage or excuse bad behavior. For example, it counsels cops who are witnesses to incidents to show up at their depositions with affidavits saying they are there under duress. Which means if they tell the truth at their depositions about what they saw at the incident and then testify differently at trial after colluding with the guilty party on what to say, you can’t impeach them with their deposition testimony because it was allegedly “under duress.”
My proposal would also help take politics out of the equation, such as Rahm Emanuel having quietly settled the LaQuan McDonald case (with taxpayer dollars, of course) to help his re-election. So let’s help incentivize the cops, their union, and the politicians to act more honestly, honorably, and in good faith.
Finally, I think the hypothetical example of the insurance adjuster is off the mark, because an adjuster personally has no liability to the policyholder; it’s the insurance company with which the policyholder has a contract that is obligated to pay and/or defend a covered claim.
In the end, as an insurance company maxim has it, the perfume of the premium covers the stench of the risk. By encouraging better behavior on the part of all concerned, we’d help reduce the stench of the risk and in the long term reduce the premiums.
Apart from the question of what size business should be considered eligible for "personal religious status" (Macdonalds compared to a Mom and Pop restaurant), I still say there can be legitimacy to discriminating against events rather than persons. As an example, the restaurant in today's email could properly refuse to host that Christian organizations Prayer Breakfast, but not their quarterly business luncheon, just as another restaurant could refuse to host a gay wedding reception but not their gay family reunion dinner.
"Do people still call in requests to radio stations? "
WFMT has "Saturday Morning Listeners' Choice".
I have long argued that an important step toward greater police accountability would be to transfer financial responsibility for bad shootings, use of excessive force, and false arrests from the taxpayers to the police themselves. The way to do this would be make the FOP, and not the taxpayers, responsible for carrying liability insurance and paying judgements and settlements. The officers and union members would then have incentives to police themselves (no pun intended) and weed out the few bad actors. As matters stand now, they get a free pass because we taxpayers always pick up the tab. But when an officer violates an individual citizen’s rights, that officer also violates the officer’s duties to the general public to act in accordance with the law. Given that Illinois voters just voted to expand the matters public union members can remove from the ability of citizens to vote on and to expand the scope of collective bargaining rights, though, this is less likely to happen than ever. We have met the enemy and he is us.
I'm pretty sure you're the one who thinks the parenthetical addition is hilarious, and, I don't care what your poll says, you're 100% correct.
“ In May 2020 I wrote a column for the Tribune about how Chicago police Sgt. Khalil Muhammad shot and wounded 18-year-old Ricardo Hayes in an act that Video surveillance from a porch nearby showed clearly was rash, unnecessary and unprovoked.” -- Zorn
Why isn’t this a deprivation of rights issue?
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
SUMMARY:
• Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Thanks for sharing that Christmas song.
Every year, I add something new to the personal Christmas playlist, so good timing. I found the song on Spotify too - and a version by David Bazan (never heard of him, either). It's on his album "Dark Sacred Night," which also features "Wish My Kids Were Here," first verse below. It ends happy though. The night turns into morning.
I just want to see my little kids on Christmas
But I'm not so sure that my kids want to see me
They live with their mom in Alabama
And I live with my girlfriend in Nashville, Tennessee
What’s the COVID protocol at Songs of Good Cheer?
I think that the decision by the restaurant in Richmond was a “sincere expression of sensitivity”, if what you mean by that is, doing whatever it takes to soothe the fragile nerves and oh so delicate sensibilities of anyone who’s minds have been so thoroughly coddled that they basically are unable to function as normal human beings. They may also have the notion of a little tit for tat with things like the Colorado baker and web designer (never mind the obvious false equivocating that that entails, but maybe not so obvious to such feeble minds), but the tell is the crap about feeling “uncomfortable and unsafe”. Personally, I never feel in greater danger than when I have to breathe the same air as someone who doesn’t hold exactly the same views as I do about everything, so kudos to that restaurant for very likely saving the lives of their entire staff.
The issue before the Court regarding provision of service is specifically about the distinction between a generic business (public accommodations) and a commissioned artist; and how that distinction can be made. The uniqueness of the creative process and the product make them different and a representation of the artist. Artists are allowed to choose their customers. No one would argue that a painter or musician can be compelled to create work for Neo-Nazis or Trump. There is no threat to standard services which provide a common product to all customers. The case last year from a baker was based on religious freedom. This case is based on freedom of speech - an artist cannot be compelled to 'speak'.
As to businesses refusing service to organizations or individuals for ideological reasons, there are no federal protections and only limited protections in some states. Again, refusing to host a QAnon luncheon is allowed. Refusing to provide services to a religious organization because of their religious beliefs is prohibited by federal law. Claiming a Muslim group made the staff feel 'uncomfortable or unsafe' because of their beliefs would obviously fail the test.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29/us/when-businesses-can-deny-you-service-trnd/index.html
I wish there was a consistent and broad approach to correcting the incompetence and structural failings of the police administration and the general counsel's office for the city. Both are products of decades of political cronyism and corruption at the expense of efficiency, effectiveness, and professionalism.
I agree with Eric on the incremental improvements in firearms laws. I am completely in favor of the improvement in the 'red flag' portion of the law, but I also think that we need a concerted administrative, training, and budgeting effort to provide for effective enforcement. The FOID card changes are just window dressing. There is no evidence of disproportionate misuse of firearms by 18–21-year-old FOID holders. And even if there were, the exception for active duty under 21-year-olds makes no sense, as they would be equally dangerous and no FOID is required for service issued firearms. Finally, the rest seems to be intentionally overbroad, as if to prepare fodder for a court test.
Lovely song for a dreary Thursday afternoon while we are supporting the NYT Guild strike by avoiding them for 24 hours…off topic, but i wonder if we have bag taxes to encourage us to bring our own bags(which I agree is a good idea) why not a box tax, too, to give us more incentives to shop local and stop ordering online? 🎶🤷🏽♀️🎶☃️
There is no meaningful corollary between Indonesian democracy and parties and the US. Indonesia has been a functioning democratic country for only 23 years. All of the 'secular' parties are dominated by Sunni Muslims and registering as a political party requires stated support for Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, or a tribal religion. 86% of the population is Muslim. All of the religions are predominantly conservative. The country has continuing significant issues with sectarian violence (anti Shia), and violence between Hindus, Buddhist and Muslims. In addition, they have violent separatist groups in Timor, Aceh, and Papua; Islamist revolutionaries; and Communist revolutionaries. They also continue to struggle with the endemic corruption in all areas of government that has carried over from prior government structures and the involvement of the military in politics. Finally, criticism of the government or its founding principles has always been illegal.
re: Knock It Off! The idea is NOT to see who reads a post without a picture, the idea is to see who is susceptible to the implied guilt of not complying with the request and is willing to follow the "leave a word, cut and paste to your own page" directions. It's a variation on passing along negative or bad information without the effort to confirm any of it, and without thought (especially in election cycles). And all probably from the same source(s).
As a US military veteran, 2nd Amendment supporter, conceal carry license holder, NRA member and firearms enthusiast, I am very open to several reasonable restrictions to help prevent firearms from being in the hands of those who are mentally unstable, those who have made verifiable threats of violence, and those with a record of criminal acts, with the appropriate safeguards for due process.
(I would also like to concurrently see consistent application of serious consequences for those who illegally possess, carry, and especially, use firearms in the commission of crimes, with dramatically increased consequences for repeat offenders. Sadly, in Chicago and cities across the US, this is consciously not being done, all under the guise of "social justice", which is on its face patently ironic since blacks are disproportionately the victims of violent firearms crimes.)
One challenging issue, which Eric alluded to, is that there does not seem to be any real definition of what constitutes an assault weapon. When I challenge people who are advocating an assault weapon ban to specifically define an assault weapon, they are generally unable to do so. Some use a description by appearance of any gun that has a military design of stock and trigger guard regardless of how it operates, and I have even heard some define any semi-automatic rifle as an assault weapon. (Elimination of all semi-automatic hunting rifles will invariably result in many hunting animals being injured and escaping to die a slow and agonizing death.)
Many on the left may be surprised to learn that many 2nd Amendment supporters are very open to discussion on finding common ground on reasonable gun restrictions that do not impair the rights of law abiding responsible citizens. But when there are demands for banning of guns without any real definition of the guns to be banned, that is not a discussion we are able to engage in.
Speaking as someone who has decades of experience both defending professional liability insurance claims and suing cops as court-appointed pro bono counsel, I think these counter-arguments are misplaced, or else Mr. Leitschuh misunderstands my proposal: it’s not that each cop carry his own personal liability policy, but that the police union - the FOP - provide the same kind of coverage, and have the same kind of financial responsibility, as the City now does. Any competent liability insurance underwriters should be able to rate the FOP in the same way it rates the City, particularly if the practice were made nationwide to provide a bigger risk pool.
Conversely, if cops wanted to buy their own personal umbrella liability policies, I see no reason why they should not be able to do so through the FOP (police union), which presumably provides all sorts of benefits to its members (or they wouldn’t bother to pay dues). I see no reason why it would be acting any differently from any other membership organization that makes insurance benefits available to its members, from AARP to AAA to bar associations or the AICPA to, indeed, mutual insurance companies like State Farm Mutual.
Yes, anyone can sue virtually anyone in America but the plaintiff must have (a) some sort of legally recognized basis for the claim and (b) facts to support it. Frivolous lawsuits brought without factual or legal support result in adverse judgments against the plaintiff and sanctions against the attorneys who bring them, up to and including having to pay the other side’s legal fees and suspension or disbarment if the attorneys involved. (Some attorneys already specialize in suing cops, by the way, under the civil rights laws that protect all of us against unlawful state action. The good ones don’t take bad cases, and the ones that take bad cases go out of business pretty quickly because they lose them.)
Based on my experience, moreover, the FOP is not entirely an innocent player, as it negotiates special rules to protect cops that encourage or excuse bad behavior. For example, it counsels cops who are witnesses to incidents to show up at their depositions with affidavits saying they are there under duress. Which means if they tell the truth at their depositions about what they saw at the incident and then testify differently at trial after colluding with the guilty party on what to say, you can’t impeach them with their deposition testimony because it was allegedly “under duress.”
My proposal would also help take politics out of the equation, such as Rahm Emanuel having quietly settled the LaQuan McDonald case (with taxpayer dollars, of course) to help his re-election. So let’s help incentivize the cops, their union, and the politicians to act more honestly, honorably, and in good faith.
Finally, I think the hypothetical example of the insurance adjuster is off the mark, because an adjuster personally has no liability to the policyholder; it’s the insurance company with which the policyholder has a contract that is obligated to pay and/or defend a covered claim.
In the end, as an insurance company maxim has it, the perfume of the premium covers the stench of the risk. By encouraging better behavior on the part of all concerned, we’d help reduce the stench of the risk and in the long term reduce the premiums.