Andy9o8

Googling ( "tyler goshawk" + scam ) returns these hits: https://www.google.com/#q=%22tyler+goshawk%22+scam Note that one of them is re: a paypal scam by someone using that name.

The Bolsheviks would have known how to respond to these people.

First, Jakee is correct in his post #63: "religion" (as per the statute) is religion, no matter what you call it or try to re-define it as. So, the court would reject that excuse as a "pretext" for unlawful discrimination, and she'd lose. She'd also lose if she claimed that ATF authorized her to refuse business with anyone she's uncomfortable with, because that broad claim would be simply untrue. While it is sort of, let's say partially, correct that she can refuse to do business with anyone she chooses, the big exception to that is that if the reason she chooses not to do business with them is that they occupy a category that is protected by any applicable anti-discrimination laws or regulations, she'd be violating that/those law(s), so she'd lose that legal argument, too. The ATF is a division of the US Justice Department. Under any party's president or Attorney General, the ATF would never issue such a blanket authorization; and even if it did, it would be viewed by any federal court as a legal nullity if it sought to authorize non-compliance with acts of Congress prohibiting discrimination.

Huh? Peruse such texts as 'The Book of Mormon,' 'The Koran' and 'Mein Kampf' if you wish to become familiar with the tenets of the 'ism' in question. Whether or not one adheres scrupulously to the rules they espouse, the fact that they consider them "The Rules" says it all. Or as Zimmerman paraphrased Deuteronomy, "Everybody must get stoned."

OMG, yes. They should use it as a case study in Marketing 101.

Where are my teeth?

It will be interesting to say the least. If memory serves; this was in response to Hispanic children wearing the Mexican flag on school grounds; but forbidding other children from wearing the US Flag during Cinco de Mayo. Yeah, if it gets heard, the Equal Protection issue - whether there's a double-standard - will probably be prominent.

On reflection, yes.

you do realize that you linked to a case that was heard in the 9th circuit, not a california court? I was replying to the post above. The original case was from California, that's why it goes to the 9th. Not exactly; although in fairness it's the sort of technical thing that most non-lawyers don't necessarily know off the top of their head. Anyhow, as far as I know, the original case was not heard in a California state court applying California state law. Rather, it was heard in federal court (in a US District Court located in California), and applied US federal law. Sorry, but as I explained in my earlier post (apologies for the length), Cohen dealt only with restrictions (and criminalization of speech) by public/government entities; Cohen does not, IMPO, apply to strictly private parties setting rules to be followed on their own private property. I think that if the US Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it's a close enough call that I personally wouldn't try to predict the outcome.

Reading this thread is like watching the progression of Alzheimer's.

But as I said in post #2, it's really not that simple; the text of the law itself does not use the word "yes" in the context of communicating consent, or even require the affirmation of consent to necessarily be verbal. As much as the law's authors seem to have been trying to be specific, its language is actually, IMPO, quite vague and ambiguous. Look, you really ought to take a minute or so to read the actual law. It's linked in my post above, and it's not very long.

Oh, in god's name, why?? You do realize all the shit on our Southern border is a grand diversion, don't you? Wake up and smell the coffee.

I don't have a specific case at easily hand, if there is one yet (but invite others to search), that specifically rules on whether a private party (like a business or a private, non-public school) can restrict freedom of expression on customers'/clients' clothing, tattoos, etc. on their premises, but I think the answer is usually Yes, at least under current federal law & regs, as long as there's no state law, reg, state constitutional provision, etc. that prohibits such restrictions. Generally, public entities have less freedom to enact restrictions on their premises than private parties do, because public entities are bound by BOTH all statutes (laws) AND the Constitution, whereas private parties (for the most part) are bound only by statues & regs that apply to them, but are generally more free to ignore (what would otherwise be) "constitutional rights" on their premises. That's because most of the basic US Constitutional protections (free speech, bearing arms, no search & seizure, etc.) apply only to government/public entities, not to private parties. That's why (at least under federal law) the private ballpark can frisk you and search your bags at the gate for weapons or outside food & drink, or why the hippie bookstore can ban guns on premises (unless there's a state law prohibiting such bans), or restaurants can set and enforce dress codes (including no "colors" or t-shirts or tats w/expressions they disapprove of, etc.). If a privately-owned tavern wants to ban a jacket saying "Fuck the draft" (like in your Cohen case... hey, remember the draft?), or a DZ ban a tat that says "Infidel", they can do so. In all these examples, you either comply or don't enter the premises (or risk being charged with trespass for doing so, just as much as you could be charged with trespass if you refuse my order to get off my lawn). A public entity, however, generally can't restrict your freedom of expression on its premises (or criminalize the actual expression) nearly as much as the private party can. That's why the Cohen case you cite really does not apply here: Cohen was charged criminally for the very substance of his expression, PLUS he engaged in that expression in a public courthouse, where it offended a cop who saw him in the corridor. (Note that Cohen took his jacket off and folded it up before entering a courtroom, so there was never an issue of improper conduct in a courtroom.) So if our Arkansas gun range owner wanted to ban a t-shirt saying "Support the right to unionize!" from her premises, she may do so, even though the public courthouse could not, because she's a private party with private property. That t-shirt would have a much tougher time being banned from the campus of a state university than a private one... for the reasons I've explained here. Now then: is the Arkansas gun range's ban on Muslims unlawful? Yes. Is it because the ban violates the Constitution? No, because that provision of the Constitution only applies to government entities; it's silent as to private parties. The reason why the ban on Muslims is unlawful is because it violates the whole network of federal anti-discrimination statutes, which include religion as a protected classification.

Good morning. Just saw your post from last night on my phone. I'll try to post more later today from a computer.

Sometimes, and sometimes not. You may not so refuse if it violates either The Federal Civil Rights Act or California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Not surprisingly, the grey areas sometimes have to be fought out in court. Article on topic: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

A strictly technical point: the nickname of the law - "Yes means yes" - is a bit misleading, as it implies that affirmative consent necessarily needs to be verbal, when in fact that's not quite the case. To my reading of the statute, the affirmative consent may sometimes be expressed via non-verbal conduct. Here's the actual text of the statute; judge for yourselves: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

This was already discussed and explained at length in the thread about that: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4467058;search_string=tattoo%20infidel;#4467058 The law of the land is that business owners may exclude people who display slogans reading (or even blatantly implying) "nigger and raghead hater", but may not exclude actual niggers and ragheads. It seems you'd prefer the converse, but I'm afraid that ship has already sailed.

OK, but I insist on your buying, if only to uphold the principle of Getting Free Stuff.

That was precisely the argument that lost in federal court in the 1960s during the civil rights battle. It's settled law now for 50 years. Let it go already. As for whether the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans should be held up as an example of a net positive or a net negative, the moral (and legal) conscience of the nation has long since deemed that to be settled as well. These positions have long since been relegated to the ash-heap of history, where they should remain.

...especially so if the GOP wins the Senate this November. If the Dems retain control, then as a practical matter POTUS will have fewer political constraints, since only a simple majority vote will be required, given that (I think) the recent removal of the filibuster option applies to the AG. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate#Use_of_.22nuclear_option.22_in_November_2013)

I'm equally appalled by the domestic surveillance as you are. But just for the sake of historical perspective, and starting only with post-WWII for brevity's sake, it's always been done, limited not by policy (for the most part), but only by the limits of the technology of the day. And it was without regard to political party in charge. 1950s surveillance of everyone per Red Menace justification under Truman and Ike, FBI surveillance of civil rights leaders and anti-Vietnam War activists under LBJ and Nixon, the list goes on. (How was national security enhanced by tape-recording M.L. King in bed with women?) With a few interludes here and there, treating citizens as suspects has been SOP almost unabated since the earliest Cold War days post-WWII. It's rare that the Executive branch, irregardless of party, willingly devolves, much less divests itself of, the power to abuse the constitution. Sure, the Obama administration may be more verbally liberal than Bush-II on social issues, but on use and abuse of executive power? - not an arc-second of practical difference, except to adhere to every administration's natural inclination to make it a growth industry.

If your debit card can also be used as a credit card you still have all the protections afforded credit card holders. Look for a Visa or Mastercard logo on it. Also, if the card was issued by your bank, go into your bank branch and submit a fraud report. Some debit card-issuing banks will even replace money fraudulently taken from you under certain circumstances.

You people act like that's not hard work.

And let's not forget Hitler, who was Austrian. Converted to Germanism.

Has she? OK, let's review this: 1. The Daily Mail is a sensationalist-diet UK tabloid which has a sorry reputation for credibility, roughly equivalent to the New York Post. Take today's edition, for example. Go to the main site, then click on the tab labeled News. Featured prominently on the front page of the News tab is a story about a double-headed turtle named "Frank and Stein". 2. I've just re-Googled the "story". Aside from the Mail story, no other news outlet outside of the right wing blogosphere has mentioned it. Not one - so far. 3. And even in the article itself: ...which itself likely answers point #2 - why haven't any reputable news outlets picked this up? Simple - because it's completely un-authenticated, which is basically Rule #1 in Journalism 101. So... really?