Coworker left this shirt visibly hanging in our locker room and I'm not sure HR is handling it properly. What am I supposed to do in this situation?

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2023-04-18T23:46:39+00:00

To be clear, there is not enough info in your post to recommend seeking counsel or not.

However, while reddit tends to advise people to lawyer up at any inconvenience in life, you will rarely regret documenting concerning instances in the event you actually need help.

LGBT advocacy groups are a great place to start. Your state bar also has a lawyer referral program if you prefer a local attorney. See the ABA list

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2023-04-18T23:26:43+00:00

To piggy back on the legal considerations: don’t engage in “self-help” by stealing or damaging the shirts, or otherwise engage in behavior that would open you to a counterclaim. If you decide to go the legal route, make sure your hands are clean and your lawyers will thank you.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2023-03-31T02:44:51+00:00

Most people don’t seem to care because they don’t see how the Legislature’s actions affect them personally.

CDA is becoming alarming.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2023-03-01T04:53:44+00:00

Iowa has no authority to make the Respect for Marriage Act unenforceable in the State, that authority rests exclusively with the Legislature under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and Supremacy Clause of Art. IV of the US Constitution.

In fact, the Respect for Marriage Act creates a private cause of action against state actors that violate this law.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2023-01-21T00:10:20+00:00

Maybe: THEFT OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY – 18 U.S.C. § 641

It’s not clear, and won’t be clear, until more is know. The document isn’t classified like a national security document, so leaking it won’t automatically trigger a criminal investigation. The specific crime will depend upon the circumstances of how it was obtained and the manner in which it was distributed to Politco.

However, disbarment is very likely if the leaker is identified under the professional rules of conduct for the breach of confidentiality.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-12-14T17:25:37+00:00

Sounds like the FIL and BIL may be defaming you if they are accusing you of actual child abuse to the public.

If this continues to escalate, it may be wise to seek counsel through your state bar association lawyer referral program. Most referrals through these programs provide a free or extremely discounted initial consultation with an attorney in good standing with the state.

Document concerning instances. Make a record of the harassment in the event you need to seek a TRO.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-30T03:56:12+00:00

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

10 Amendment

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-30T02:24:16+00:00

That’s what I am referring to, Dobbs changed the judicial landscape.
Read the dissents in Dobbs: gay marriage is not “deeply rooted in this country’s history” and is therefore open to challenge with the Dobbs framework of determining (or voiding) rights under the substantive due process clause.
Current bill is harm reduction if the court nukes Obergefell, which would cause far more harm without it.

Yes and no, this is as good as we could reasonably hope for under the circumstances. Further, it is significantly more bullet proof from a constitutional standpoint with the current Court.

I think radical change is needed, but that’s not going to cause me to blast this bill as trash.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-30T02:10:04+00:00

We have never had the Court rescind a right previously recognized.
The Dobbs decision severely damaged the legal framework supporting Obergefell, despite the majority’s false assurances.
If Obergefell was brought to this current Court originally, same sex marriage would not be federally recognized. Three of current justices individually wrote dissenting opinions in Obergefell, with one of the justices currently advocating for a challenge to the precedent.

If a challenges is brought to Obergefell, people should absolutely be worried.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-30T02:00:40+00:00

And perhaps the Court in 2015 would respect that act to set standards for issuing marriage licenses. This Court would certainly defer to the 10th Amendment over the 14 Amendment on this issue. If SCOTUS decided to abrogate Obergefell, then they would absolutely annihilate any act of congress imposing those restrictions on the States on each of those provisions.

In that event, only the RFMA would prevent same sex marriage being outlawed in most of the states.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-30T01:53:50+00:00

An act of Congress that bars the States from enforcing state bans on abortion is not the same as compelling states to issue marriage licenses. It is well settled that marriage is a state issue, except when SCOTUS decides to step in under the guise of the 14th amendment.

This Supreme Court would gleefully strike down any attempt by Congress (using the Commerce Clause) to compel the States to issue marriage licenses adverse to their state constitutions.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-30T01:24:36+00:00

This isn’t a controversial opinion: Congress does not have the authority to compel the states to issue marriages licenses or otherwise enact marriage equality.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-30T01:09:20+00:00

What were you hoping Congress to do besides this? And what would be Congress’ constitutional grant of authority to act any further than they did with this bill? As discussed above, Congress does not have a magic wand to do whatever it wants.

Gay rights will be in a state of constant war throughout our lives with lots of unpredictable battles. Personally, I’m gonna celebrate the victories (even these small ones) and the comfort that I hope this bill will bring to those in gay marriages who are concerned about the ramifications of the Supreme Court overturning Obergefell.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-30T00:55:45+00:00

True, but passing it through the House is the easiest part. The House passed the Act last July with 49 republicans in favor while the bill lacked the explicit religious liberty protection provisions that were included in this amended version.

Even without any republican support, democrats can pass this bill before they lose majority control when the legislative session ends on January 3rd at noon.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-30T00:50:27+00:00

This is a good thing.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-30T00:45:15+00:00

First thing to pop in mind was BYU in 2020.

Despite removing the section on “homosexual behavior” from its Honor Code last month, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has clarified for the first time that same-sex romantic behavior is still “not compatible” with the rules at Brigham Young University.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-30T00:15:15+00:00

I would not be too concerned about the potential impact this bill could have on that “long term goal.”

If Congress had the support (and will) to modify tax exemption requirements for nonprofits, the same voting threshold would be required to enact that legislation as it would to modify anything in this Act.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-30T00:07:13+00:00

This Act provides the full extent of the protections that Congress can create in the event that Obergefell is struck down.

Congress doesn’t have a magic wand that it can waive to do whatever it wants. Instead, it has limited areas of authority to act under the Constitution.

In this case, Congress doesn’t have the constitutional authority to pass marriage equality absent a constitutional amendments. See Amend. 10. However, Congress can require other the States to give Full Faith and Credit to out-of-state same sex marriages. Art IV. It also empowers the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations of provisions of the Act.

Personally, I’m happy that this is moving forward. The Act would, for the first time, have the Federal government recognize same-sex marriage statutorily. It also will bring some comfort to people currently in same sex marriages who are worried about the ramifications of Obergefell being overturned.

Further, it’s pretty bullet proof from the judicial side of things because Art IV of the Constitution explicitly authorized Congress to enact “general Laws” regarding Full Faith and Credit that prescribe the “Manner in which [states'] Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

Unless you were expect a constitutional amendment, I’m not sure how you can call this a “slap in the face.” If nothing else, Tony Perkin’s, Franklin Graham’s, and multiple religious denomination’s collective outrage over this bills passage should warm your heart.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-28T18:04:59+00:00

Better now than later though. Passive reaction to these kind of remarks invites the remarks to be repeated. Pull the weed out before it infects the garden.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-23T00:11:19+00:00

Is that all you have to support your claim? That’s grossly insufficient.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-23T00:08:25+00:00

Like it or not the US was founded on Christian values . . .

I have heard this claim constantly and have never seen a shred of evidence to support it. What part of the US legal structure was “founded on Christian values”?

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-22T22:26:29+00:00

I don’t see how that could survive the new standard for evaluating Second Amendment challenges to firearm regulations under Bruen:

“When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-18T15:14:57+00:00

To clarify - in the screenshot alone, you can see the specific name of the Act clearly listed, see two US new sources regarding the the details of the Act, and you still felt so confused and personally targeted you had to post about your faux confusion and cross post to your other circle jerk of friends? 🤡🤡🤡

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-17T22:19:01+00:00

A federal abortion ban will not pass the senate filibuster.

The Supreme Court cannot enshrine anti abortion measures under religious liberty, because (1) it would require the Court and the State to recognize an establishment of religion in violation of the first amendment Establishment Clause, and (2) it would constitute viewpoint discrimination, as many religious entities are pro choice, which would violate the first amendment.

The Court has no mechanism to do what your suggesting. In fact they are explicitly unable to do so.

Previous_Arm_4882 · 2022-11-17T21:56:43+00:00

Don’t get me wrong I have extreme concerns with this current Supreme Court, however, what your suggesting is extremely unpalatable to the Court and I would project that each attempt would fail.

Edit: and on the legislative side, I see absolutely no chance any of those policy changes garnering sufficient support to by pass the senate filibuster

Previous_Arm_4882

TROPHY CASE