Popular Post smac97 Posted August 1, 2019 Popular Post Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) A while back this board hosted a series of discussions pertaining to a conflict between, on the one hand, the civil rights afforded to gay persons, and, on the other, the use of anti-discrimination and public accommodations laws to compel private citizens and businesses to engage in conduct and speech that contravened their civil rights. Here's a partial list of those threads: Emerging Skirmishes along the "Religious Freedom" vs "LGBT Civil Rights" as related to Mormonism T shirt maker has gay customers, gay employees, still sued Masterpiece Cake Shop religious freedom case at Supreme Court New Masterpiece Lawsuit: Cakes, Religion & Speech, Round 2–this time, a transgender birthday cake Supreme Court's Decision in Colorado "Gay Wedding Cake" Case Lawsuit re: Gay Weddings / Free Speech (the next one) It looks like this skirmish in the Culture War is not yet over. See here: Ann Arbor Could Fine Conservatives $500 Per Day for Not Parroting Left-Wing Talking Points Quote A law in Ann Arbor could force a Democrat to write speeches for President Donald Trump or a pro-life artist to create a mural for Planned Parenthood. On Tuesday, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a conservative political consulting firm, warning that an Ann Arbor non-discrimination law would force that firm to parrot liberal messages and help Democrats get elected. If they refuse, they could get hit with fines of $500 per day. ADF is representing Grant Strobl and Jacob Chludzinski, founders of the company ThinkRight Strategies. ... The Ann Arbor non-discrimination law is extremely broad and open to abuse. The law defines a "place of public accommodation" to include any "business ... whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations are extended, offered, sold or otherwise made available to the public." Any such company is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of political beliefs. "Ann Arbor's law is quite broad," the ADF lawyer noted. "It even prohibits Grant and Jacob from putting a statement on their website that they will only advance conservative beliefs and from having internal policies saying that." According to section 9:155, "No person shall adopt, enforce or employ any policy or requirement, publish, post or broadcast any advertisement, sign or notice which discriminates or indicates discrimination in providing housing, employment or public accommodations." While it might be defensible to prevent a company from posting a sign reading "no blacks allowed" or "no gays allowed" or "no conservatives allowed," this law also prevents ThinkRight Strategies from posting a sign or even an online message reading, "ThinkRight Strategies advocates for conservative causes and will not promote liberal causes." Worse, section 9:156 even prohibits ThinkRight Strategies from having an internal policy restricting its services to conservative candidates or causes. "No person shall adopt, enforce or employ any policy or requirement which has the effect of creating unequal opportunities according to ... political beliefs ... for an individual to obtain housing, employment or public accommodation, except for a bona fide business necessity. Such a necessity does not arise due to a mere inconvenience or because of suspected objection to such a person by neighbors, customers or other persons," the law states. "Regardless of where people stand on the political divide, all of them should be supporting Grant and Jacob in this lawsuit because people should be able to determine for themselves which political causes they promote," Green said. "If Grant and Jacob were to post an explanation on their website of the political beliefs they can and cannot advance or to decline to write a speech for a Democrat’s campaign, they could face fines of up to $500 per day." I am glad to see such lawsuits being filed. We need to stop this assault on civil liberties. By constantly falsely accusing people of good conscience and good character of horrible things, by seeking to punish other people because they have opinions which do not jibe with theirs, by distorting both the form and intent of "public accommodations" laws to go after religious people, the militant gay rights crowd have burned bridges. Opportunities for mutual understanding and love and cooperation and tolerance are being diminished or destroyed. In short, nobody likes a bully. And sooner a later, the bullying ceases to have its intended effect. Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac Edited August 1, 2019 by smac97 12
Calm Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) Has anyone in Ann Arbor actually been compelled yet? Or is the lawsuit solely about b lieved possibilities? From the code: Quote Place of public accommodation. An educational, governmental, health, day care, entertainment, cultural, recreational, refreshment, transportation, financial institution, accommodation, business or other facility of any kind, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations are extended, offered, sold or otherwise made available to the public, or which receives financial support through the solicitation of the general public or through governmental subsidy of any kind. (23) Political beliefs . One's opinion, whether or not manifested in speech or association, concerning the social, economic, and governmental structure of society and its institutions. This chapter shall cover all political beliefs, the consideration of which is not preempted by state, federal or local law. With regard to employment, an individual's political beliefs that interfere or threaten to interfere with his or her job performance are specifically excluded from this protection. Edited August 1, 2019 by Calm
CV75 Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 I understand the Church to have framed this conflict as one between defining and negotiating civil rights, anti-discrimination and public accommodation laws (which seem to become quite conflated) and preserving the overarching priority of the "higher law" protecting free religious expression (First Amendment).
Calm Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) I am curious as how long this business has been around: Quote A Michigan-based political consulting startup is suing the city of Ann Arbor over a law that forces the firm and its young owners to promote political messages and causes they don’t believe in. https://www.libertyheadlines.com/firm-sues-michigan-promote-left/amp/ They have a pretty minimal website: https://www.thinkrightstrategies.com/ Edited August 1, 2019 by Calm 1
Calm Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) LinkedIn has the company as one employee (Strobl) and one follower, apparently existing since June 2018. https://www.linkedin.com/company/thinkrightstrategies?trk=public_profile_position_image Bet this raises their profile. Got to wonder why a larger company didn't feel the need to contest. The newer employee is apparently still a student at UofM as he graduates next year. https://mobile.twitter.com/j_chludzinski?lang=en Strobl will be a law student at University of Chicago according to linked in, was a law student at Norte Dame according to his twitter account. His high school was in Grosse Pointe Shores and whitepages has him living there. Ann Arbor is about an hour away on the other side of Detroit. Whitepages has Chludzinski living nearby him in Clinton Township, a little bit further away from Ann Arbor. I assume the company is based in Ann Arbor because Chludzinski goes to school there. Looks like Strobl is an alumni of UofM. Since I know of many companies started by students, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. However, they provide no example as far as I can tell from several reports where they were actually compelled in the last year since the company was formed to act contrary to their conservatice beliefs (despite what headlines are saying), so I am somewhat cynical about the choice of this company to sue. Lots of free advertising and likely a good investment strategy. Neither of them appear to be mention the company on their Twitter pages for the past couple of months, but the company page has a portfolio, so looks like they have done some work, though some (all? So far the four I checked were earlier) at least outside the company as likely done before the company was formed. Edited August 1, 2019 by Calm
Storm Rider Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 I don't understand the validity of a complaint about who is making the lawsuit. Isn't the purpose to determine if the law is overly broad or defective in some way? 4
provoman Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 55 minutes ago, Calm said: From the code: Political beliefs . One's opinion, whether or not manifested in speech or association, concerning the social, economic, and governmental structure of society and its institutions. This chapter shall cover all political beliefs, the consideration of which is not preempted by state, federal or local law. With regard to employment, an individual's political beliefs that interfere or threaten to interfere with his or her job performance are specifically excluded from this protection. To the first bolded point, the way it reads, it appears that Ann Arbor has elevated its law as supreme to State and Federal law. As to the second bold, that would appear to cover the political consulting firm. I see the greater problem being the definition of political belief. Is any given position on marriage a political belief; thus a baker can claim political belief as a bases for refusal to make bake/decorate a cake for a heterosexual couple, a polygamous couple, a same sex couple? Would supporting and engaging in discrimination based on religious status be a political belief?
Calm Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 16 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: I don't understand the validity of a complaint about who is making the lawsuit. Isn't the purpose to determine if the law is overly broad or defective in some way? Isn't there a problem with standing or something that requires an action already have been taken by the city to compel speech as opposed to it being possible it will be interpreted that way!
Popular Post Amulek Posted August 1, 2019 Popular Post Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, smac97 said: Thoughts? This one should be an open-and-shut case. We're dealing with a clear speech issue here, and the government cannot require Americans to help distribute speech of which they disapprove. At least, that's what the Supreme Court held in Wooley v. Maynard when it upheld drivers’ First Amendment rights not to display on their license plates a message with which they disagree. The logic of Wooley applies equally to a consulting firm's right not to distribute such messages. The government’s interest in preventing discrimination cannot justify restricting ThinkRight Strategies’ First Amendment rights. They are not discriminating based on the political "orientation" of any customer. Rather, its owners are choosing which messages they distribute - something the Constitution unquestionably protects. They should win their case easily. However, I find it regrettable that there is a need for them to bring suit in the first place. I would be nice if legislators, however well intentioned, would refrain from passing laws which are so blatantly unconstitutional. (Stop laughing; a guy can dream.) Edited August 1, 2019 by Amulek Clarity. 6
Calm Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 Is there any way to tell how long the code has been in force and if there has been any actual complaints based on political positions made?
Amulek Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 6 minutes ago, Calm said: Isn't there a problem with standing or something that requires an action already have been taken by the city to compel speech as opposed to it being possible it will be interpreted that way! Standing is a tricky subject, but my understanding is that a plaintiff can have standing if there is some actual threatened injury even if that injury has yet to occur.
longview Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: Strobl is a law student at University of Chicago according to linked in....perhaps his home is in Ann Arbor, though his high school was in Grosse Pointe Shores and whitepages has him living there. Ann Arbor is about an hour away on the other side of Detroit. Whitepages has Chludzinski living nearby him in Clinton Township, a little bit further away from Ann Arbor. I assume the company is based in Ann Arbor because Chludzinski goes to school there. They are both students. It is wonderful that young people can start an enterprise and not have to be a massive presence (having actual work experience goes a LONG way to helping them choose education courses in a more focused way). It appears they were (or still are) members of YAF (Young Americans for Freedom), advocacy group found in many universities across the country. They are performing a essential service to counter the overwhelming dominance of the radical left that saturate many liberal arts departments. 1 hour ago, Calm said: Since I know of many companies started by students, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. However, they provide no example as far as I can tell from several reports where they were actually compelled in the last year since the company was formed to act contrary to their conservatice beliefs (despite what headlines are saying), so I am somewhat cynical about the choice of this company to sue. Lots of free advertising and likely a good investment strategy. They know the track record of various left leaning subversive groups such as ACLU and SPLC etc, so it is a very prudent thing to anticipate and to counteract regulations sneaked in by deep state operatives. This hearkens back to the Fairness Doctrine controversy: https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/why-the-fairness-doctrine-anything-fair Edited August 1, 2019 by longview
smac97 Posted August 1, 2019 Author Posted August 1, 2019 52 minutes ago, Calm said: LinkedIn has the company as one employee (Strobl) and one follower, apparently existing since June 2018. https://www.linkedin.com/company/thinkrightstrategies?trk=public_profile_position_image Bet this raises their profile. Got to wonder why a larger company didn't feel the need to contest. The business identifies itself as a "conservative political consulting firm." I can see the wisdom of challenging this statute, both to preemptively avoid the imposition of fines, and also to raise the profile of these guys. I'm not a big fan of using litigation for ulterior motives (such as free publicity), but I think the former motive is sufficient, even if the latter ends up being a perk. 52 minutes ago, Calm said: Since I know of many companies started by students, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. However, they provide no example as far as I can tell from several reports where they were actually compelled in the last year since the company was formed to act contrary to their conservatice beliefs (despite what headlines are saying), so I am somewhat cynical about the choice of this company to sue. Lots of free advertising and likely a good investment strategy. I think the lawsuit is legit, even if they haven't been fined yet. It comes down to a question of standing (do the plaintiff's have legal standing to challenge the statute) and ripeness (is the dispute "ready for litigation," even though no fine has been assessed against the plaintiff). However, I am assuming that the attorneys (the "Alliance Defending Freedom") have experience in evaluating claims prior to filing suit, since filing suit on claims that are not ripe, or on which the plaintiff lacks standing, would be a big waste of time. 52 minutes ago, Calm said: Neither of them appear to be mention the company on their Twitter pages for the past couple of months, but the company page has a portfolio, so looks like they have done some work, though some (all? So far the four I checked were earlier) at least outside the company as likely done before the company was formed. Again, I'm not a big fan of using litigation for free publicity. But in this case, I think the constitutional issue is legitimate and serious. Thanks, -Smac 2
Storm Rider Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Calm said: Isn't there a problem with standing or something that requires an action already have been taken by the city to compel speech as opposed to it being possible it will be interpreted that way! I am not an attorney and the issue of Standing may be reason to boot the lawsuit. However, if a company is in business, I would expect it to have standing for such a lawsuit. One of our lawyers needs to come forward with a professional opinion.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: I don't understand the validity of a complaint about who is making the lawsuit. Isn't the purpose to determine if the law is overly broad or defective in some way? Not just anyone can file a complaint. One must have legal standing, and a judge usually rules on who has standing. Just wanting to test a law is not enough to give standing. One must usually have something real at stake, or be one whose ox has been gored. 1
RevTestament Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 5 hours ago, smac97 said: A while back this board hosted a series of discussions pertaining to a conflict between, on the one hand, the civil rights afforded to gay persons, and, on the other, the use of anti-discrimination and public accommodations laws to compel private citizens and businesses to engage in conduct and speech that contravened their civil rights. Here's a partial list of those threads: Emerging Skirmishes along the "Religious Freedom" vs "LGBT Civil Rights" as related to Mormonism T shirt maker has gay customers, gay employees, still sued Masterpiece Cake Shop religious freedom case at Supreme Court New Masterpiece Lawsuit: Cakes, Religion & Speech, Round 2–this time, a transgender birthday cake Supreme Court's Decision in Colorado "Gay Wedding Cake" Case Lawsuit re: Gay Weddings / Free Speech (the next one) It looks like this skirmish in the Culture War is not yet over. See here: Ann Arbor Could Fine Conservatives $500 Per Day for Not Parroting Left-Wing Talking Points I am glad to see such lawsuits being filed. We need to stop this assault on civil liberties. By constantly falsely accusing people of good conscience and good character of horrible things, by seeking to punish other people because they have opinions which do not jibe with theirs, by distorting both the form and intent of "public accommodations" laws to go after religious people, the militant gay rights crowd have burned bridges. Opportunities for mutual understanding and love and cooperation and tolerance are being diminished or destroyed. In short, nobody likes a bully. And sooner a later, the bullying ceases to have its intended effect. Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac As i see it there are actually three constitutional issues involved: religious freedom, free speech and civil liberties. In my opinion one should not be able to trump another or we are going to end up with suits by gay authors against publishers who do not want to publish their book.Compelling any kind of speech is not only a contravention of free speech but can also be a contravention against government non-interference with religion. We have gotten into this mess of the federal government compelling businesses to do things because the government feels it should regulate interstate commerce. It is better that the federal government stay out of these corollary issues, and let businesses be run how owners wish to do so to the extent possible. Refusing to rent to someone because the landlord learns they are gay is much different from refusing to print or publish gay material or leftist propaganda. In the first case it is difficult to see how the landlord's constitutional rights are impinged. We should not cave in on this battle for speech and religious liberties. When free speech goes, democracy is in extreme peril. No, no government in the Unites States should be able to compel any type of print or to publish anything. Hell, there is plenty of leftist press out there. It's everywhere.
Storm Rider Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Not just anyone can file a complaint. One must have legal standing, and a judge usually rules on who has standing. Just wanting to test a law is not enough to give standing. One must usually have something real at stake, or be one whose ox has been gored. The issue of standing came after the initial accusations that inferred unworthiness on the company bringing the lawsuit. The comments were: "Has anyone in Ann Arbor actually been compelled yet? Or is the lawsuit solely about b lieved possibilities?", "I am curious as how long this business has been around:", "They have a pretty minimal website:", "LinkedIn has the company as one employee (Strobl) and one follower, apparently existing since June 2018.", and "Bet this raises their profile. Got to wonder why a larger company didn't feel the need to contest." I understood these comments to denigrate the litigant because it was a small company; that they were somehow unworthy of questioning the law. The topic of standing did not come until after I questioned this. Standing is a legal judgement. I just made an assumption that the law firm taking the lawsuit, Alliance Defending Freedom, was not interested in wasting time and money if they had not already confirmed or believed firmly that this entity had standing. 2
The Nehor Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 3 hours ago, Calm said: LinkedIn has the company as one employee (Strobl) and one follower, apparently existing since June 2018. https://www.linkedin.com/company/thinkrightstrategies?trk=public_profile_position_image Bet this raises their profile. Got to wonder why a larger company didn't feel the need to contest. The newer employee is apparently still a student at UofM as he graduates next year. https://mobile.twitter.com/j_chludzinski?lang=en Strobl will be a law student at University of Chicago according to linked in, was a law student at Norte Dame according to his twitter account. His high school was in Grosse Pointe Shores and whitepages has him living there. Ann Arbor is about an hour away on the other side of Detroit. Whitepages has Chludzinski living nearby him in Clinton Township, a little bit further away from Ann Arbor. I assume the company is based in Ann Arbor because Chludzinski goes to school there. Looks like Strobl is an alumni of UofM. Since I know of many companies started by students, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. However, they provide no example as far as I can tell from several reports where they were actually compelled in the last year since the company was formed to act contrary to their conservatice beliefs (despite what headlines are saying), so I am somewhat cynical about the choice of this company to sue. Lots of free advertising and likely a good investment strategy. Neither of them appear to be mention the company on their Twitter pages for the past couple of months, but the company page has a portfolio, so looks like they have done some work, though some (all? So far the four I checked were earlier) at least outside the company as likely done before the company was formed. It is almost certainly a makeshift company designed specifically to be a test case that will vanish once the lawsuit is finished. I have my doubt the extreme interpretations of the law people seem annoyed about (that are not spelled out in the law) would ever be enforced in any case but hey, never miss a chance to fundraise. I do like those lawyers challenging the right of MtF athletes to compete in women’s sports and, naturally, clean up due to the fundamental differences between genders in the ability to build muscle. 2
Calm Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Storm Rider said: understood these comments to denigrate the litigant because it was a small company; that they were somehow unworthy of questioning the law. You misunderstood. It is the fact that it was relatively new that made me wonder if the company had been created solely in order to challenge the law. The existence of another company that had not been established fully suing a city preemptively and being challenged on standing iirc (and losing iirc***) made me curious about both the primary purpose of the company and the standing issue. If it had been created to challenge the law, I would likely class it with those who shop around for a company to sue to challenge laws and possibly make money on the side as well. The ethics of the plaintiffs are dependent imo on their motivation. If primary to make money or get attention, I am not impressed. If they are idealists hoping to improve law, I have no problem with it. There are likely those who want to do both. Which is more important to them would be how I would judge then. It looks like at least one of them has been doing political promotion work for years, so it is a logical step to take it professional, even if it turns out to be a company to help pay for schooling and not their life long dream...which it may be. I am all for student companies and take them very seriously. We are often among the first customers. We have had our house painted, lawn mowed, lights trimmed, foods served, lips softened, hands protected, etc by ambitious students for 30 years. I love helping them get off the ground. In one sense they pay our bills and have led to a comfy lifestyle for me. I know of/met several one to two man startups who ended up with high end companies. The first university my husband taught entrepreneurship at was the home of the original Pizza Hut building, started by two students iirc. (Been almost 30 years so a bit fuzzy on the details.) ***”However, the Court also finds that to the extent the Larsens claim that the MHRA would require them to publicize videos of same-sex weddings online, the Larsens have no standing because the alleged injury-in-fact is too abstract and hypothetical to present a genuine Article III case or controversy.” https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mnd-0_16-cv-04094/pdf/USCOURTS-mnd-0_16-cv-04094-0.pdf Edited August 1, 2019 by Calm
Calm Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: It is almost certainly a makeshift company designed specifically to be a test case that will vanish once the lawsuit is finished. It is possible. Most students serious about their companies eat, sleep, breathe their work in my experience so I expect some mention in all that twitter activity, but there are those who are just in it to pay the bills until they get to the point they can shift to their dream. They may have just decided to expand the limited purpose of the company. One is going to law school and was highly involved in as a leader in politics***** since high school iirc, so I think challenging the law is likely high on importance for him. Given the time he has already given to politics in his young life, I bet he would be doing this without any financial incentive. (Was campaign coordinator for a potential congressman back in 2012 when he was probably a sophomore or junior in high school, had several internships including one with Hannity at Fox News, chairman of YFA for his high school, university, and national). Sounds like he intends politics to be his life. Given the influence of YFA and his internships, sounds like a major upandcomer. It would be informative to find out when the law was put in place. And if the plan was created back in June ‘18, why they waited a year to file (maybe hoping another company was complained about so as to give greater justification to suing). *****https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Americans_for_Freedom Edited August 1, 2019 by Calm
Amulek Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 37 minutes ago, Calm said: It would be informative to find out when the law was put in place. And if the plan was created back in June ‘18, why they waited a year to file (maybe hoping another company was complained about so as to give greater justification to suing). Getting ready to walk out the door, but the state's website has a 'compare versions' tool which you can use to figure out when the law was changed. It's on their website, here: https://library.municode.com/mi/ann_arbor/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITIXPORE_CH112NSC_9_151DE I did a quick compare against the current version and a version from over a year ago and there weren't any substantive changes. Didn't have time to go back farther and see when it was last seriously amended. 1
Calm Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Amulek said: Getting ready to walk out the door, but the state's website has a 'compare versions' tool which you can use to figure out when the law was changed. It's on their website, here: https://library.municode.com/mi/ann_arbor/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITIXPORE_CH112NSC_9_151DE I did a quick compare against the current version and a version from over a year ago and there weren't any substantive changes. Didn't have time to go back farther and see when it was last seriously amended. Thanks for finding this. Have no clue how to read this but there is a note of Oct 20, 2014 at the bottom of the section that may mean something. The code comparative table has 9:151 associated with ‘92 and ‘99. https://library.municode.com/mi/ann_arbor/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COCOTA Edited August 1, 2019 by Calm
Robert F. Smith Posted August 1, 2019 Posted August 1, 2019 5 hours ago, Storm Rider said: ............................ Standing is a legal judgement. I just made an assumption that the law firm taking the lawsuit, Alliance Defending Freedom, was not interested in wasting time and money if they had not already confirmed or believed firmly that this entity had standing. Yes, and that is the way that such legal defense organizations search for precedent-setting cases. Got to have standing.
Calm Posted August 2, 2019 Posted August 2, 2019 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Yes, and that is the way that such legal defense organizations search for precedent-setting cases. Got to have standing. Alliance Defending Freedom is the same organization that defended the Larsens’ case that was judged as not having standing due to the complaint was hypothetical, which is the same apparent condition here since no complaints were specified. ADF also lost that lawsuit. (Link above) It would appear certainty about standing may not be as strong a factor in ADF’s choice of taking cases as assumed by some.
Recommended Posts