Every year around the holidays it’s not totally unheard of to discover that some nativity scene has been vandalized by teenagers, or much worse, that a baby was left deserted in a manger. While upsetting as both of those scenarios are for a number of reasons including violation of public property and moral decency (and the fact that babies should never be left in random mangers) there’s a new reason a nativity scene is garnering some weird press–zombies!

An Ohio couple is currently at war with their community, after refusing to take down a hand-built nativity scene from their front yard modeled after the undead. For the second year in a row, Jasen and Amanda Dixon assembled the biblical scene to feature life-size zombie replicas of Mary, Joseph, and the three wise men, as well as a razor-toothed baby in a manger.

Man told to remove Zombie nativity scene. https://t.co/1davLEVb2w pic.twitter.com/QV6S6E0jD6

— WPEC CBS12 News (@CBS12) December 4, 2015

Mr. Dixon first created the replica as a marketing ploy to promote “13 Rooms of Doom,” the nearby haunted house he runs. He told a television crew that he resurrected the theme this year because it was “such a hit.” However, some religious members of his community took offense calling the scene “blasphemous.” According to the nativity’s Facebook, two Baptists even dropped off a pamphlet in the baby’s manger that read “GOD FROWNS UPON THIS MANGER SCENE.”

The town’s zoning officials also demanded the structure be taken down, claiming it violates local zoning laws. According to a local news site, the couple received warnings last year for two zoning violations–one for the size of the accessory structure in which the zombie nativity figures were displayed and the second for debris in front of the garage. As a result they removed the structure and the debris before any citations could be filed.

This year they opted to downsize the design of the nativity and apply in November for what they thought were the proper permits, yet their request was denied. Officials told them that zoning code doesn’t allow “accessory features” in front yards, but instead of removing the structure again, they opted to leave it up and take their chances.

As of Friday they’ve already received their first citation, which carries a $500 fine. The citations could continue to cost them an upwards of $500 for each day they are in noncompliance.

But is the structure even illegal in the first place? There seems to be some debate over whether or not there is an actual ordinance banning “accessory features” from front yards, or if the house is being targeted due to the structure’s subject matter.

The Dixons have remained adamant that the piece has nothing to do with religion, and is just “artwork.” They’ve even gone as far as adding the disclaimer “we are not atheist” to the about section of their website. Despite this, controversy remains around the little zombie Jesus. Even if they continue to hold out, it may just be a matter of time before they’re forced to lay their project to rest.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Zombie-Themed Nativity Scene is as Scary as it Sounds, But is it Illegal? appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since Starbucks unveiled its new minimalist red cup design, everyone has been freaking out for incredibly stupid reasons. And speaking of incredibly stupid, Donald Trump has now gotten involved in the debate, so we should expect this silly controversy to continue.

First, there were a few people posting that the design, which doesn’t feature anything noticeably Christmas-y, is anti-Christian.

The complainers inexplicably include Rob Lowe:

Between their program to have baristas lecture me about race and now their removal of “Merry Christmas” I’m officially over @Starbucks#done

— Rob Lowe (@RobLowe) November 10, 2015

Joshua Feuerstein, a social media personality, posted a video to Facebook in which he “tricked” Starbucks into writing Merry Christmas on its cups by telling the barista that was his name when ordering his drink.

Today in Pointless Conservative Christian Self-Martyrdom, Joshua Feuerstein & Starbucks Cups https://t.co/liI21KV3TC

— let’s handle mexico (@jbaileystweets) November 8, 2015

The outcry itself actually seemed relatively minor and scattered, but then people started complaining about the people complaining, as the internet is wont to do.

Remember that time in the bible when Starbucks refused to sell Jesus a peppermint mocha cuz he wasn’t wearing shoes? #boycottstarbucks

— Nina Bargiel (@slackmistress) November 9, 2015

This Santa is dressed in Red. Totally offensive. #WarOnChristmas#RedCups#BoycottSanta#boycottstarbuckspic.twitter.com/KnafInx9Qm — bennydiego (@bennydiego) November 10, 2015 

Everyone remembers where we were when they had the first shots in the Great Latte Battle during the War on Christmas. #boycottstarbucks — Tina Dupuy (@TinaDupuy) November 10, 2015

Now, everyone’s favorite troll doll, Donald Trump, has weighed in on the controversy, calling for a possible Starbucks boycott.

The entire thing is epically silly–first of all, there was never Merry Christmas written on the cups to begin with, but rather more generic winter and holiday designs, like trees and snowflakes. Additionally, there are plenty of other Christmas-branded products in Starbucks stores. 

Hey, Christians raging over Starbucks’ red cup, here’s their 2015 Christmas Blend coffee. Not holiday: pic.twitter.com/SJ6im7aak5

— The Rude Pundit (@rudepundit) November 9, 2015

With Trump weighing in, this total first world problem of a debate was somewhat validated, and given even more media coverage. But Starbucks’ stock hasn’t been affected, and plenty of people are still shelling out loads of cash for coffee from the brand. So, this ridiculous argument is just a waste of time and caffeine.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Things We Don’t Care About: Trump Suggests a Starbucks Boycott appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Christmas! And in honor of the spirit of the day, I am going to give you all a present. (For everyone who does not celebrate Christmas, I am still giving you a gift just because it is more fun to give than to receive.) My gift is some free advice that could change your life: do not go to Indiana if you plan on drinking and being annoying. Because that’s illegal.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Now you know those laws that were created four hundred years ago and are never enforced, but also never repealed, so we all like to make fun of them? You know what I’m talking about. Like how in my home state of Alabama, there may or may not be a law against wearing fake mustaches that cause laughter in church. Or how in Arkansas, you can’t keep an alligator in the bathtub (incidentally, famed critic Dorothy Parker once bought two baby alligators and put them in a bathtub while she decided what to do with them. She came home one day to find a note from her ex-maid saying she quit because she “cannot work in a house with alligators” and that she would have told Parker this earlier, but that she “never thought the subject would come up.” So maybe this law is a good idea if you want to keep good help, but I digress … ) The one I’m writing about today is not one of those archaic laws. This one was actually upheld quite recently.

Rodgregus Morgan was drunk when he was arrested, it is true. However, that alone was not why he was arrested. You see, the cops thought that he was being annoying and, really, in Indiana, that is all it takes. Indiana has a public intoxication law – enacted in 2012, so, again, not an archaic one – that says you cannot be drunk in public and harass, annoy, or alarm another person.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Morgan, as mentioned before, was drunk. So when he wouldn’t leave the bus shelter where he had fallen asleep, even though a cop asked him to do so, he was arrested because, well, that is just plain annoying, right? I mean, it really annoys me when people don’t do what I ask.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Morgan had a different take on the matter: he “wasn’t being annoying;” he was “waiting for the bus.” Hmm. That’s harder to classify as annoying, but I can try to make it work. Maybe the bus would have been really overcrowded and let’s face it, when I cannot get a seat and have to stand, that’s pretty annoying. But would that really be Morgan’s fault? Or is it a product of the situation itself?

At any rate, let’s see what the courts have to say about this situation. Well, an appeals court said annoying is too hard to define, and so they overturned the conviction. I’d disagree with this ruling. I may not be able to give annoyingness a concrete definition, but, like pornography, I for sure know it when I see it.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Luckily, we can move on to the Indiana Supreme Court to find some common sense. In that high court, they basically agreed with me. Which, in my book, makes them the exact opposite of annoying, because I am always right. They said that you can tell what being annoying is by using the reasonable person test and that the statute was perfectly legit. However, they then said that Morgan wasn’t being annoying and so they dropped his conviction. But that is actually beside the point in this morale tale. The point, of course, being that you can be arrested for being drunk and annoying. Which means that many people I know should stay far away from this state because I know a heck of a lot of annoying drunks.

Anyway, I hope everyone has benefited from my present whether or not you are celebrating today. And for the many of you who found a paid vacation to Indiana as your stocking stuffer, I am sorry if I put a damper on your exciting present.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Annoying Drunks: Stay Far Away From Indiana appeared first on Law Street.

It’s that time again. You made it through another week of work or finals on the long trudge into the holiday break. YES. This week I’m getting into the holiday spirit and came across a fun competition that our friends across the pond at Lawyer 2B are holding. Through its Twitter page the British company is encouraging law firms to tweet their best pictures of company Christmas trees. My personal favorite? The creative and beautiful tree of legal books from Muckle LLP — love it! Flip through the slideshow below to see how British lawyers are getting into the season, and tweet your favorites. Here’s your early Christmas edition of the Best Legal Tweets of the Week.

[SlideDeck2 id=30108 ress=1]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.