California Senate Bill 1146 (SB 1146) created an earthquake of controversy.
I just returned from a speaking engagement with the National Association of Attorneys General (Midwestern) in Indianapolis. The city used to be a dump; now it’s thriving. (In these pre-Final Four days, it’s the place to be.) The NAAG event was tremendous: it’s a shame they don’t transcribe or podcast the discussions. The panelists (yours truly included) yell at each other on the blogs but lo, they’re actually is a trans-party, Yale-to-GMU constituency for the rule of law—and they meet in a hotel room and learn from each other. The NAAG’s Dan Schweitzer, who called this thing together, is a…
Have you heard the one about the Christian florist who declined to sell flowers for a gay wedding? She got sued by the Washington AG and by the ACLU. In a 60-page opinion, a state judge ruled against her. The florist is appealing. Also, she has since stopped selling flowers for any kind of wedding, lest “discrimination” break out yet again.
Have you heard the one about the young lady who showed up for a job interview with Abercrombie & Fitch wearing a black headscarf? You will: her fate is at issue in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch, pending before the Supreme Court. Abercrombie’s strict regulations of its floor “models’” attire and appearance include a prohibition against headgear.
Which President advocated the following conservative notions in his State of the Union Address? Restoring local government, reviving charities, freeing business from regulation, denouncing the education bureaucracy, tightening the borders, and strengthening “the values of traditional families.”
Contrast this with a more progressive President whose State of the Union Address emphasized raising the salaries of academics and doctors; calling for frank discussion of race relations, declaring a “year of culture,” and increasing trust in the government—while never mentioning God.
On Tuesday January 15, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a long awaited judgement. Four British citizens had sought from it a ruling that, on account of their religion, legal rights belonging to them under the European Convention (EC) had been breached. They claimed they had been breached first by their employers and subsequently by employment tribunals and the national appeal courts who ratified the treatment of the employees by their employers.