ArcticBill
ArcticBill
ArcticBill

Yes, I responded to the same post on this thread. Hobby Lobby will actually help in striking down this law.

This is a terrible idea. This is essentially the government doing indirectly what they are prohibited from doing directly; they are using taxation powers to prohibit certain conduct which would otherwise be permissible under the Tenth or Fourteenth Amendments. I don't want to live in some nanny state where the

It is interesting you raised Hobby Lobby. The true irony is that this screwball legislation in Indiana, mixed with Hobby Lobby may actually have our desired effect.... Here is why.....

While rare, it is not without precedent. Both men and women have been offered such plea deals. There was an HIV positive dude who was obsessed with having a child. He put many women at risk for getting HIV. Fortunately none of the women were tested as positive. However, he was convicted of aggravated assault and as a

I'd be willing to wager a pretty penny on the outcome of a constitutional challenge. I suspect the law will be "read down" to apply only to businesses which are per se for the benefit of a designated religious/fraternal/ethnic...etc group. For example, a 7/11 shopkeep will be prohibited from discriminating against

Every Canadian jurisdiction has some sort of exemption under provincial/territorial human rights legislation which allows for discrimination in narrow cases. For instance, laws allow for women-only gyms, men-only golf clubs and religious/fraternal organizations. However, the business itself must be for specific

I have a distant relative who sat on the jury. He saw that tape and it was deeply disturbing. Back in the day they did not have psychological counselling available for jurors and others involved in the criminal justice system.

It is not that I assume one way or the other. Juries are made of up laymen who are not versed in the law. In fact people with legal training of any amount are excluded. In Ontario there are a long list of professions and occupations excluded, such as lawyers, police, coroners, medical doctors and lots of others.

Perhaps Michelle was high-functioning. I have Asperger's Syndrome, but obviously high-functioning. So I know very well there is a spectrum. But correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the thinking and reasoning impairments more of an exception or the result of a concurrent ailment?

I met Sinclair at INAC years back. I have mixed feelings about Idle No More. They are analogous to the students in Quebec who are constantly protesting; these movements are being nihilistic and actually counter-productive. Every political/ideological/religious movement implodes. Black Panthers became bank robbers and

Statistics of this sort are quite susceptible to and misleading representations. The definition of DV varies greatly based on the methodology used. Therefore, when you hear claims that 70% of all women experienced "intimate partner violence", it should be taken with a grain of salt. The definition of IPV ranges from

I don't follow. CP is not an intellectual disability. My ex-girlfriend from years back had CP and is a now a law professor. I am all for black humour and all. However, this dude is not even funny.

Being selective with the facts is synonymous with Winston Churchill's famous "economical with the truth" quip in Parliament!

The issue is not the Fox News like sound bites. Everyone has a right to an opinion, not just people who have law degrees and are intimately familiar with the niceties of the legal system.

There was no flattering way to portray her lawsuit. It is ridiculous. She played the gender card with absolutely no factual basis. She was by all accounts a terrible employee who no one liked. It must not be forgotten that SHE is the one who made it a gender issue. The jury got it right.

Maybe she really was a horrible boss. She played the "I am a woman" card and failed miserably. Pointing out historical discrimination against women in the workforce is not an impenetrable shield from being called out for being a shitty boss or incompetent. Or, perhaps she grossly over-shot the old-school advice to

This is just over-the-top political correctness. There are lots of ads which use gender and racial based humour. Even MRAs have compiled an archive of humours ads depicting men as underachieving buffoons. Feminists are humourless; even Catherine MacKinnon said that humour and free speech are tools of the "patriarchy."

I can't speak intelligently to the statistics in the US. However, in Canada there are reliable statistics which show that violent victimization is broken down, in descending order: (1) Aboriginal male; (2) Aboriginal female; (3) non-Aboriginal male; (4) non-Aboriginal female. In the context of domestic violence, it is

That was my point, albeit terribly articulated lol ... Without the admissible evidence, there was reasonable doubt notwithstanding who was believed or disbelieved.