Illinois Attorney Suspended For Seeking a “Secretary With Benefits”
Hey, at least he was open about it, asking in the help-wanted ad for the applicants’ measurements and specifying in a follow-up e-mail that “as part of the interview process you’ll be required to perform for us sexually”
The 1930s Called: They Want Their Miscegenation Laws Back
A Kentucky church votes to ban inter-racial couples
Mugged in Madrid
Anatomy of an Internet Scam; also: How safe is the data you store “in the cloud”?
Porn on a Plane (follow-up articles)
Psychologists: What does go through a man’s mind to make him think viewing child pornography in public is a good idea?
The passenger who took photographed Professor Smith looking at child pornography on his laptop (actually, if this guy filmed any of the child pornography himself, he can technically find himself in trouble now — because a private citizen in possession of child pornography, even for the sole purpose of exposing somebody else, is committing a crime)
McDonald’s and Burger King Get Around San Francisco’s “No Happy Meals” Law
The lesson here: if you pass a law that absolutely nobody wants, you’d better make it loophole-proof. On the other hand, maybe the legislators thought the law was silly as well, so they passed it to make the zealots happy while leaving McDonald’s and Burger King an easy way to ignore it.
Anti-miscegenation laws weren’t declared unconstitutional until 1967.
Also, churches are allowed to have different marriage rules than the state.
(and also, this church already changed their minds.)
They may have already changed their minds, but it reflects really badly on them that the idea even occurred to them, let alone that they tried to act on it.
Also, it seems safe to assume that they only “changed their minds” because of the bad publicity. The church didn’t say that they changed their mind because they realized that anti-miscegination rules were immoral. From:
Rev. Stepp’s explanation doesn’t make a lot of sense, since (unless they have some particularly unusual local or state laws), there’s nothing illegal about a church having discriminatory rules (although it could affect their tax-exempt status).
Well, marriage laws are state, not federal… although the Constitution does require them to be fairly applied.
However, the first amendment still guarantees that the church can have any marriage rules they’d like… because the marriage rules for the church are entirely separate from the marriage laws of the state.
James, your response indicates that you’re disagreeing with me, but I don’t see that anything you say contradicts what I said?
Your survey question was the wrong one. It shouldn’t be whether laws should be passed, it’s whether bad laws should be passed.
I’m in favor of restricting some advertising to children, but whoever had the brilliant idea of taking out the toy should probably run for office – we need that sort of brilliant thinking. Oh, that’s right – they already did.
That “secretary with benefits” lawyer obviously has no intent of ever practicing law again. I guess he wanted to go out with a bang, so to speak.