A federal appeals court in Chicago on Tuesday ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the workplace is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The 8-3 decision is unprecedented, as all other federal appeals court rulings have sided with employers. The Supreme Court has never heard a case on the issue.

Chief Judge Diane Wood, writing for the majority opinion, said “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination,” and that “it would require considerable calisthenics to remove the ‘sex’ from ‘sexual orientation.'” Wood, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, added that her ruling was based on the “common-sense reality that it is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex.”

The case, Kimberly Hively vs. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, centers around a professor in South Bend, Indiana. Openly lesbian, Kimberley Hively had been working as a part-time professor at Ivy Tech’s South Bend campus from 2000 to 2014. Six times between 2009 to 2014, Hively applied to full-time positions at the college. She was denied an interview all six times and, in July 2014, the college did not renew her part-time contract.

Hively sued the college, but a federal district court ruled in favor of Ivy Tech. Tuesday’s decision vacates the lower court’s decision. Federal law, under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Discrimination based on sexual orientation, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday, is also protected by federal law.

Writing for the dissenting opinion, Judge Diane Sykes said the ruling was “momentous,” and amounted to “the circumvention of the legislative process by which the people govern themselves.” Sykes, who President Donald Trump reportedly considered nominating to the Supreme Court, continued: “We are not authorized to infuse the text with a new or unconventional meaning or to update it to respond to changed social, economic, or political conditions.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Appeals Court Rules LGBT Discrimination Violates the Civil Rights Act appeared first on Law Street.

A tiny town in Indiana is officially without a police force, after the town marshal and four other officers resigned on Monday. “The Town is currently without the Police Department,” read a reassuring sign posted outside of the Bunker Hill police department. “In the case of an emergency please call 911.” The marshal, Michael Thomison, blamed the Bunker Hill Town Council for the big exodus.

“[The council] would not communicate with us or the officers and they kept scaling back,” Thomison told a local TV station. He said that some members of the council asked the officers to do “illegal, unethical, and immoral things,” such as running background checks on other town councilors. They were threatened when they declined the councilors’ requests, Thomison said.

So who will protect Bunker Hill, a town with an estimated 2015 population of 858, in the meantime? The sheriff of Miami County, which includes Bunker Hill, said county deputies will patrol the town and respond to calls until a new marshal is hired. The town’s website has a job listing for a part-time marshal.

Bunker Hill issues statement after entire police force resigns https://t.co/QMeFTJmNOp via @cbs4indy

— Ms Marvel (@jeana_guzman) December 15, 2016

Thomison also claims that he and the other officers were forced to share one set of body armor. “I did not want to send someone out there with bad body armor so I would take mine off and provide it to the other officers,” he said. In a statement, the Bunker Hill Town Council denied all of Thomison’s allegations, and blamed disagreements over a “lack of funding available to the town to invest in the police department.”

Thomison also had a more personal beef with the council. He was diagnosed with cancer last year, and in May, he told the council he was ready to get back to work full time. The council however, would only take him in a part-time role. “They came at me and said it is costing the town way too much money because of my insurance and they said we are taking you down to part time,” he said.

The Bunker Hill Town Council, in its statement, said the “resignation of the entire police force has come as a shock,” and it was never the goal “to dismantle or otherwise endanger the town police department or officers.” The council thanked the officers for their service, and “asks for patience from the town residents in this process.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bunker Hill, Indiana Had its Entire Police Department Quit in One Day appeared first on Law Street.

Texas established new rules preventing health care facilities from disposing of fetal remains following an abortion or any miscarriage that requires a medical procedure–instead, the state will now require women to pay for the burial or cremation of those remains.

The rules will take effect on December 19, according to state health officials, the Texas Tribune reported. The decision, supported by Governor Greg Abbott, prohibits hospitals, abortion clinics, and other health care facilities from disposing of fetal remains regardless of the period of gestation.

In a fundraising email sent to supporters Thursday, Abbott cited the rule change, saying Texas is working to “turn the tides” against the abortion industry in the state and protect the “rights of the unborn.”

“I believe it is imperative to establish higher standards that reflect our respect for the sanctity of life,” Abbott said in the email. “This is why Texas will require clinics and hospitals to bury or cremate human and fetal remains.”

The Texas Department of State Health Services finalized the new regulation on Monday, inviting a legal challenge from reproductive rights advocates. Their arguments against the rule are that it has no medical or safety benefits. In fact, reproductive rights advocates said the state had failed to provide evidence that the rule benefits public health or improves current medical practices.

But Republican lawmakers have already filed legislation to make the law official when the state government reconvenes in January.

“The state agency has once again ignored the concerns of the medical community and thousands of Texans by playing politics with people’s private healthcare decisions,” Heather Busby, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, said in a statement.

The public reaction to the fetal burial law was overwhelmingly negative online.

Keep in mind that fetal burial laws aren’t just in Texas; Ohio has one coming down the pike & VP-elect Pence signed one into law in Indiana.

— Lauren Rankin (@laurenarankin) November 29, 2016

This will encourage women having a miscarriage not to see a doctor. That’s unconscionable. https://t.co/H8rgViM7Zc

— Lori Grapentine (@LGraps) November 29, 2016

Texas is the second state to implement a fetal burial law. When Vice President-elect Mike Pence was the governor of Indiana, he also signed a bill that included such a provision.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Rules in Texas Will Require Burial or Cremation of Fetal Remains appeared first on Law Street.

Republican Vice Presidential nominee Mike Pence is being criticized for his response to a controversial case in which a man was wrongfully convicted. Now the man is asking to go back to court for another trial since Pence, as Indiana’s Governor, won’t grant him a pardon until he has tried all other judicial options.

Keith Cooper spent almost ten years in prison for armed robbery, a crime he didn’t commit but was wrongfully convicted for in 1996. During the robbery a teenager was shot in the stomach but survived. When another man involved in the case had his conviction overturned because of new evidence that surfaced in 2005, authorities offered Cooper a new trial, which could take at least two years–or the chance to go home to his family but have a felony conviction on his record.

After being locked up for a decade, Cooper chose the latter. He could finally see his wife and three children again. But since it’s been next to impossible to find a decent job as a convicted felon, he later sought a gubernatorial pardon. In the spring of 2014 the parole board in Indiana unanimously urged Pence to grant Cooper a pardon. This would likely have been the first pardon based on actual innocence in Indiana history.

Mike Pence refuses to pardon an innocent and wrongly convicted man, yet GOP runs a willie horton ad attacking Kaine https://t.co/389BIxtBcQ

— geokaren (@geokaren) October 4, 2016

And according to DNA evidence, Cooper is innocent. The victims and original prosecutor believe in Cooper’s innocence as well. But despite that fact, Pence’s office said in a September 20 letter that Cooper must first try all other judicial options. Basically that means Pence doesn’t have to make a decision about granting a pardon before he leaves office in January.

Many of Cooper’s supporters wanted the case to be brought up at the Vice Presidential debate on Tuesday.

Mike Pence should be asked why he has not pardoned Keith Cooper, an innocent man wrongly imprisoned for ten years. #VPDebate #KeithCooper

— Mike Williams (@drummike2012) October 4, 2016

Can’t believe @mike_pence said this during the #VPDebate Actions speak louder than words! #PardonKeithCooper @ElliotSlosar pic.twitter.com/5WHwWC7at4

— Pardon Keith Cooper (@PardonKeith) October 5, 2016

Cooper’s attorney Elliot Slosar said:

The lack of courage displayed by Gov. Pence is shocking. Instead of using his executive power to change the life of an innocent man, Gov. Pence has decided to punt this issue to the next governor of Indiana and inform Mr. Cooper that he needs to head back to the same court where he got wrongfully convicted in the first place.

But Pence’s deputy of staff chief Matthew Lloyd replied:

The governor’s office believes this is a necessary and proper approach that will produce information the governor will need as he considers a pardon for Mr. Cooper.

Pence has only pardoned three people during his three years as governor, while his predecessor Mitch Daniels pardoned 60 people during eight years in office. The Cooper case has gained serious support on social media as well as on an online petition–we’ll have to see if it has any effect on Pence’s numbers.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Innocent Man Seeks New Trial After Governor Mike Pence Declined Pardon appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been less than a week since Donald Trump announced that his running mate is going to be Indiana Governor Mike Pence. But not a ton is known about Pence–according to CBS News, 86 percent of voters are undecided on him or don’t have enough information on him to form an opinion. But as reporters, pundits, and commenters dig into Pence’s past, some weird revelations are coming to light. Check out the top 5 weirdest revelations about Mike Pence, his life, and his family so far.

He Really Doesn’t Like Mulan

Mike Pence had a long history of commenting on politics before he ever ran for office. He wrote an op-ed on “Mulan” back when the Disney movie came out in the late 1990s. Pence dubbed the movie propaganda that was designed to change people’s hearts and minds when it comes to women in the military.  He wrote:

I suspect that some mischievous liberal at Disney assumes that Mulan’s story will cause a quiet change in the next generation’s attitude about women in combat and they just might be right.

via GIPHY

 But he Has Weird Views on Smoking

Mike Pence apparently has never sat through a high school D.A.R.E. class. He wrote an op-ed entitled the “Great American Smoke Out,” in which he proclaimed: “Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn’t kill.” While he gracefully recognized that “smoking is not good for you” his narrative runs contrary to recognized fact.

via GIPHY

Pence’s Daughter May be a Vampire

The evidence is in a tweet posted by Pence a few days ago. He’s at a Chili’s with his family, enjoying a nice meal. There’s clearly a mirror next to them, and while both Pence and his wife Karen have reflections, his daughter Charlotte doesn’t.

Busy weekend in NY! Enjoying a quick dinner with the family at @Chilis. Looking forward to getting back to Indiana. pic.twitter.com/SUFjYcvQpH

— Mike Pence (@mike_pence) July 16, 2016

Apparently the weird optical illusion has to do with where the photo was taken from, but I’m going to need real proof that Charlotte Pence isn’t a vampire.

He Thinks George Washington was a Republican

In George Washington’s famous farewell address, he warned against exactly what’s happening in the United States right now–an entrenched two party system. And Washington was expressly not a Republican.

Yet Pence wrote in an op-ed that stated: “Republicans, from George Washington to George W. Bush just have better ideas.” Not all Georges are Republicans, Pence!

via GIPHY

His Wife Helen has a Hard Time Keeping her Towels Straight

Helen Pence just shut down her towel charm business. What is a towel charm? Well, it’s a small metal charm that fixes that pesky problem when you can’t figure out which towel is yours.

if karen pence doesn’t give everybody @ #RNCinCLE a towel charm she’s failed https://t.co/xjRo3JUCe3 (via @TonyRomm) pic.twitter.com/v9McPn1No4

— Nick Andersen (@nicktheandersen) July 14, 2016

CLAM TOWEL CHARM. #pencehttps://t.co/oky2ngn67Dpic.twitter.com/1Fjg2jRbGV

— Max Freeman (@maxmfreeman) July 17, 2016

In case you wanted any, unfortunately, it looks like Helen’s towel charm business has been put on hold while we finish the election. 

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 5 Weirdest Revelations About Mike Pence So Far appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s top stories again included women protesting Indiana’s abortion bill, as well as a look at Lewis & Clark Law School’s public interest law program and Duke University’s sit-in protests. ICYMI, check out the top stories below.

Periods for Pence: Update Your Governor on Your Menstrual Cycle Today!

Women in Indiana are getting fired up about HEA 1337, a controversial abortion bill signed into law by Indiana Governor Mike Pence this past week. To stand up for what they believe is an infringement on women’s right to privacy, women from all over the state are calling the governor to inform him about their menstrual cycles. Read the full article here.

Advocating with a Passion: Why a Career in Public Interest Law is Worth Considering

Public interest lawyers provide voices to the members of our society who are so often overlooked, help to save the environment, take on oppressive laws, and fight for fairness. If you are a changer-of-the world looking for meaningful work that will feed your desire to make real change, public interest law is a path you should consider. Lewis & Clark Law School, located in Portland, Oregon, has one of the leading Public Interest Law programs in the country, making it a great place for aspiring public interest lawyers to get their start. Read the full article here.

#DismantleDukePlantation: Duke Student Protests Continue

Sit-in protests continue at Duke University, where students are enraged by the actions of some of their school administrators. The protests began last Friday afternoon when nine students occupied the second floor lobby of the Allen Building, home to the school’s administrative offices.Why are Duke students protesting? Read the full article here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI last week’s top stories on Law Street we’re pretty eclectic. Jillian Sequeira analyzed Israel’s efforts to dismantle cults, Sean Simon imagined the Republican party as an actual party, and Alexandra Simone reported on abortion activists phoning Governor Mike Pence to discuss their menstrual cycles. ICYMI keep reading to learn more about each of these top stories.

1. Israel’s Battle to Dismantle Cults: An Inspiration for the Rest of the World?

The Israeli parliament, the Knesset, has recently introduced an anti-cult law designed to dismantle New Age sects of Judaism that are considered explosive forces within the country by the lawmakers trying to regulate them. Take a look at that situation in Israel and how other countries have handled cults in the past in comparison with the proposed Israeli law. Read the full article here.

2. If the Republican Party Was an Actual Party

You open up your email after getting to work on Friday morning, and you see that right above an email from Amazon asking you to finally buy the panini press that’s been sitting on your wish list for months, you have an email from Reince Priebus. Confused, you open the email, and you realize that it’s an evite. “Who uses evites anymore?” you wonder. Read the full article here.

3. Periods for Pence: Update Your Governor on Your Menstrual Cycle Today!

Women in Indiana are getting fired up about HEA 1337, a controversial abortion bill signed into law by Indiana Governor Mike Pence this past week. To stand up for what they believe is an infringement on women’s right to privacy, women from all over the state are calling the governor to inform him about their menstrual cycles. Read the full article here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Women in Indiana are getting fired up about HEA 1337, a controversial abortion bill signed into law by Indiana Governor Mike Pence this past week. To stand up for what they believe is an infringement on women’s right to privacy, women from all over the state are calling the governor to inform him about their menstrual cycles.

The bill, which passed in the Indiana House earlier this month by a vote of 60-40, prohibits abortions based purely on sex, race, national origin, or disability of a fetus, as well as imposes several other harsh restrictions on women in attempt to lower rates of abortion in the state of Indiana. In the words of Republican Representative Sean Eberhart, who claims to be “as pro-life as they come,” the vote on this bill “is a perfect example of a bunch of middle-aged guys sitting in this room making decisions about what we think is best for women.”

The over involvement of middle-aged white men is what women in Indiana, and all across the country, are worried about and exactly why they started the Pence Period Phone Hotline.

Don't forget to call the Pence Period Hotline tomorrow! 317-232-4567 Finish the week BIG! Credit toN Beth Line pic.twitter.com/ym3BBdawJo

— PeriodsforPence (@periodsforpence) April 1, 2016

Friendly reminder from ur vajayjay to call @GovPenceIN to let him know what's up down there. Big PUSH! 317-232-4567 #women#PPIN#choice

— PeriodsforPence (@periodsforpence) April 1, 2016

This group, Periods for Pence, was created following Mike Pence’s signing of HEA 1337 to let the governor know how women feel about his intrusive bill. Both the Facebook and Twitter accounts are encouraging women to call the governor and give reports about the state of their periods so he can be as informed as possible, since he seems so concerned with the safety of women’s health.

The Facebook account, which features messages sent in by women who have called the governor, has post after post of hilarious conversations between these women and the people answering phones in the governor’s office. In one such post, a woman called the office and the conversation went as follows:

Them: “Good Morning, Governor Pence’s office”
Me: “Good Morning. I just wanted to inform the Governor that things seem to be drying up today. No babies seem to be up in there. Okay?”
Them: (Sounding strangely horrified and chipper at the same time) “Ma’am, can we have your name?”
Me: “Sure. It’s Sue.”
Them: “And your last name?”
Me: “Magina. That’s M-A-G-I-N-A. It rhymes with–”
Them: “I’ve got it.”
*Click*

When she called back a few minutes later, she was transferred directly to a voicemail where she left a message:

Hello, this is Sue Magina again. I just hit a pothole on I-70. It was a doozy! I’m worried it might have shaken something around up in there, and I wanted to make sure that was addressed in this new abortion law. I knew Governor Pence would be worried. Thanks.

While what these women are doing is certainly funny, there is also a deeper and more serious meaning behind the movement. Women in the state of Indiana and the country as a whole are tired of men in legislative bodies making all the decisions about what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. While these men may claim to have women’s best interest in mind, they have no idea what it’s like to be a woman or face the health issues women deal with on a daily basis. This movement calls their bluff by making a satirical statement and simultaneously educating the governor’s office about individual differences in menstrual cycles from woman to woman.

Women are working their ways up in this world, but, unfortunately, we are still the minority in most, if not all, legislative bodies. As a result men are making a majority of legislative decisions about our health and bodies and it’s time to speak out about why that’s wrong. Because, at the end of the day, the reality of this situation is that it’s not the Governor of Indiana or any other man who is affected by these laws–it’s women!

@periodsforpence Lets change Pence's favorite hashtag #astatethatworks to a more honest assessment of the situation: #astatethatworksformen

— alix naveh (@alixnaveh) April 1, 2016

So, go ahead. Call male representatives making decisions about women’s health in your state and let them know all the dirty details of your menstrual cycle so they can make more informed decisions in the future and better understand exactly what their laws mean for all of us. Let’s make state and national policies that work for all of us.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Periods for Pence: Update Your Governor on Your Menstrual Cycle Today! appeared first on Law Street.

Texas isn’t the only state that is trying to limit a woman’s right to her own body.

Last week, Indiana’s state legislature passed HB 1337,  a bill that will severely restrict access to abortions in Indiana, and it’s now on its way to Governor Mike Pence’s desk. Like the Texas bill that is currently in front of the Supreme Court (and completely condemned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg), HB 1337 proposes to establish several TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) rules that would, in effect, shut down all but a few clinics that offer abortion services, and make abortion procedures even more costly for pregnant women and facilities.

Among many regulations, HB 1337:

Prohibits a person from performing an abortion if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because of: (1) the race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the fetus; or (2) a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.

This provision is complicated because (1) It is not the business of anyone but the individual woman as to the reason for the abortion, and (2) It means that a woman’s motive has to be proven before the abortion can be performed. If a physician has any reason to believe the woman is seeking an abortion because of the child’s race, sex, or mental handicap, she can be turned away. It doesn’t matter if she was raped, or if the child’s life would be severely limited or impaired.

The bill goes on to require that

Pregnant women considering an abortion must be given the opportunity to view the fetal ultrasound imaging and hear the auscultation of the fetal heart tone at least 18 hours before the abortion is performed and at the same time that informed consent is obtained.

So, not only does this hypothetical woman in Indiana who has made this difficult decision have to prove she is not having an abortion because of the race/sex/mental state of the fetus, but she must now be forced to listen to the heartbeat of that fetus and have an ultrasound (a procedure not wholly covered by insurance), after which she will be forced to see the fetus. After that emotional and costly ordeal, she must wait 18 hours before she can have the abortion. Which leads us to a TRAP (literal and figurative) for both abortion-seekers and abortion clinics: HB 1337:

Provides that a written agreement between a physician performing an abortion and a physician who has written admitting privileges at a hospital in the county or contiguous county concerning the management of possible complications of the services must be renewed annually.

What are admitting privileges? Basically, hospitals keep a list of doctors and clinics that are allowed to admit patients to that hospital. The reasoning behind this TRAP is supposedly in case complications arise from the abortion procedure. Okay, that’s fair. However, given that the majority of abortions are performed by taking a pill, and abortions are safer procedures than having a routine colonoscopy, asking every clinic that offers abortions to also pay for expensive admitting privileges means that many of those clinics will not be able to run. Meaning there will be fewer clinics, and they are farther away, so that hypothetical woman from before who is waiting 18 hours for an abortion is probably doing that waiting in a hotel room that she has paid for out of pocket.

But what really slams the nail into the metaphorical coffin of Indiana abortion services is one of the last provisions HB 1337 makes, which says “a miscarried or aborted fetus must be interred or cremated by a facility having possession of the remains.”

And who do you think is paying for those services? Exactly. This woman, after being subjected to the emotional and expensive journey to her nearest abortion clinic, must now fork over even more money to the facility performing her abortion to bury or cremate the unborn fetus.

Now that the bill has reached the governor’s desk, all he has to do is sign it for this hypothetical to become a reality. It may be too late for Indiana, but women’s rights cannot continue to be stripped away like this in states that disguise oppression as protection. It is unconstitutional, and it must stop.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Indiana Is About To Pass An Ultra-Restrictive Abortion Law appeared first on Law Street.

The Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill Tuesday to grant protections for private businesses holding religious views that refuse service to gay and transgender individuals, along with individuals who have sex outside of marriage.

But House Bill 773, titled the Government Non-Discrimination Act, does exactly the opposite of its intended purpose, at least depending on who you are talking to. 

The bill states,

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a government entity shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, in whole or in part, on the basis that such person believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that (i) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, (ii) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage, or (iii) the male sex and the term “man” and the female sex and the term “woman” refer to an individual’s biological sex as determined at birth.

Under this act, state agencies are denied the ability to reduce or cancel funding, contracts, and entitlements; alter tax treatment, or deny other benefits based on beliefs held by private entities such as believing marriage is solely between a man and a woman, sex is only for marriage, and that the terms man and woman are only based on biological sex.

If a company holds these views but doesn’t act on them, then it is not seen as as much of an issue. Saying, “I don’t agree with your lifestyle but we are still going to give you our services” is not as bad as “We are not going to serve you because you are X,Y, or Z.” The problem lies in that this act enables companies to openly discriminate and refuse service to specific groups of people and be completely protected from punishment from the government. Therefore, it seems that something aimed to be nondiscriminatory to one group is completely discriminatory to another.

The bill’s patron–Del. C. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, said that this bill is another way to protect businesses from the movement to push religion out of the public life, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Virginia Nondiscrimination Bill Discriminates, Passes House of Delegates appeared first on Law Street.

Zach Anderson is the 19-year-old young man whose harsh sentence received national backlash after he had sex with a 14-year-old girl who told him she was 17. His sentence was just vacated by a judge, and a new sentence will be given. But while Anderson may now be getting a gentler sentence, his plight still says a lot about the state of the sex offender laws in our country.

Anderson, who is a native of Indiana, met the unnamed 14-year-old girl through a hookup app called “Hot or Not.” Much like other, perhaps more widely known hookup apps like “Tinder” it allows users to represent themselves in really however they see fit–there’s no age verification involved. So, Anderson, who was 19 at the time, met a girl who portrayed herself as 17. She lived just 20 miles away across state lines in Michigan. They met, and had “consensual” sex, despite the fact that she was under the age of consent.

It was at this point that Anderson was arrested and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor criminal sexual conduct. But the sentence he received was exceedingly harsh. Anderson was sentenced to 90 days in jail, as well as five years on probation. He also would be on the Indiana and Michigan sex offender registries for 25 years–a command that comes with a sentence of its own. According to CBS News,

Anderson also faces 61 conditions including restrictions that bar him from going online, dining at restaurants that serve alcohol and even living at home, because he has a 15-year-old brother.

As a result of his sentence, he also had to withdraw from Ivy University, where he was planning on majoring in computer science. The sex offender registry rules have prohibitions on using computers that would have made it impossible for him to complete his studies.

The harshness of these conditions resulted in a public outcry. Many onlookers viewed Anderson’s plight as unfortunate–after all, he wasn’t the one who lied about his age. In fact, both the girl he had sex with, as well as her mother, asked the judge for leniency.

But the judge in his case, Dennis Wiley, claimed that Anderson should have been able to tell that the girl was younger than she said she was. He wrote in his sentencing about how his decision was based in part on “the Court’s observation of the victim at sentencing, who appeared to be extremely young in development and maturity…It should have been apparent to a casual observer that she was clearly underage and vulnerable.” He also appeared to take issue with the fact that the two met online, and offered what can be viewed as an overall indictment of so-called “hookup culture.” Judge Wiley stated during the hearing: “That seems to be part of our culture now. Meet, have sex, hook up, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this whatsoever.” But regardless of Judge Wiley’s personal feelings, “our culture” wasn’t on trial–Anderson was, and he clearly paid a hefty price for what the judge believed.

However, that sentence was just vacated by Judge Wiley, although not because of its harshness. Instead, it was based on a procedural issue with the prosecutor, Assistant Prosecutor Gerald Vigansky, and the comments he made at Anderson’s sentencing about the sentences Wiley gave in similar cases. As a result, a new judge will re-sentence Anderson. While there’s no guarantee that the new sentence will be less harsh, Anderson’s family sees it a step in the right direction. After all, given Anderson’s lack of history as a sex offender, and the other particulars of the case, it’s hard to imagine that such a stringent sentence will be replicated.

Regardless of what happens in Anderson’s case, sex offender laws in the United States are beginning to fall under increasing scrutiny. The idea that a young man could be placed on the sex offender registry for 25 years, because of an act of consensual sex during which he was lied to, is hard to justify. But it’s certainly not the only case in which these laws have been applied unjustly. As former Judge William Buhl, who presided in a town near Anderson’s told CNN:

If we caught every teenager that violated our current law we’d lock up 30 or 40 percent of the high school. We’re kidding ourselves.

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 Young Man Sentenced to Years on the Sex Offender List May Get a Second Chance appeared first on Law Street.

One of the most recent applications of Indianapolis’ new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is not exactly what supporters of the bill expected when Governor Mike Pence signed it into law in March. The bill was designed to ensure that personal religious liberties are not infringed upon, seeking to reflect a federal bill of the same name. Following this decision, a new church named the First Church of Cannabis, sought to gain recognition as a religious group. Its founder, Bill Levin, recently received IRS certification that it is officially a nonprofit charitable organization. This group, created in Indiana, plans to have its first service on July 1, which Levin says will include smoking marijuana. There’s just one problem: marijuana is illegal in Indiana. However, since this is in the context of a religious service, Levin believes he has the right to smoke marijuana without having his religious liberties infringed upon. This claim as a church will have to be defended legally, but Levin, in an interesting application of the new law, is pressing on with plans for the July 1 meeting, which is when RFRA takes effect.

Since its passing, the Indiana RFRA bill been very controversial, with individuals, businesses, and even government officials from other states stating their concerns that its language would allow discrimination against LGBT citizens for religious reasons. Although Pence oversaw a change to the law on April 4 that added a section saying that it cannot supersede local laws preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, many local Indiana municipalities do not have such anti-discrimination laws. Also, despite what some proponents of the bill have argued, Indiana’s RFRA bill is not the same as its federal counterpart. Before this bill, and currently in most states, laws that are neutral and generally applicable are only subject to a “rationality review,” and religious objections would be less likely to overrule basic laws. Under Indiana’s bill, even neutral and generally applicable laws are now subject to “strict scrutiny” and allow for religious objections to such laws.

Despite these issues, there is still a lot of support for the bill, especially among conservative media. Most proponents argue that it will not be used for discrimination, but rather it will protect religious observers from being forced to act against their faith. On his Fox News show, Todd Starnes argued that the Indiana bill does not allow for discrimination, although the language of the bill does seem to allow it. He mentions that “bakers, photographers, wedding planners, even pastors” are being attacked “simply because they choose to live out their religious beliefs.” In a heated (and not very productive) discussion on his show, Sean Hannity and two of his guests stated their fears of infringement upon religious rights, repeatedly arguing that discrimination is not the issue at hand. While many have stuck to this position, some, like constitutional lawyer Michael Farris, admit that the provision protects the practice of faith to the point of discrimination.

Upon hearing about the Church of Cannabis, the religious Right who fervently supported Indiana’s bill, are now singing a different tune. Bill O’Reilly, host of the O’Reilly Factor on Fox, discussed the bill on April 9 during his “Talking Points” segment. O’Reilly praised the Indiana bill for “providing people of faith with an avenue of legal challenge.” In a later show, O’Reilly labelled the first Church of Cannabis a “con,”  and pointed to the conflict between the church doctrine and the state’s marijuana laws. But, this is exactly what the Indiana law was intended to do: allow religious objections to supersede laws that a believer claims is in conflict with his or her faith. When discussing the implications of RFRA for the Church of Cannabis, O’reilly stated, “it’s really a different situation.” Is it a different situation because the religion in question is not Christianity? If there is a strict investigation to determine if the Church of Cannabis is a genuine religious group, should the same apply to all religious objections?

While the First Church of Cannabis has to legally prove that it is a church before the protections of Indiana’s bill are applicable, should a Christian believer have to prove their faith and the legitimacy of their place of worship before being allowed to pose a religious objection under RFRA? In her statement on the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that she believed in “keeping the courts ‘out of the business of evaluating’ . . . the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held.” And while courts have historically analyzed the sincerity of religious beliefs, it has only been on a basic factual level.

The development of this new church in Indiana has brought to light two issues with Indiana’s RFRA. The first is that, when applied in a context different from what supporters originally imagined, the support for its effects begins to wane. A law about religious freedom that is only meant to affect certain religions violates its own principles of protecting religious liberty; however, this is the exact context under which the bill was passed. Secondly, the validity of concern over religious freedom is subject to question. Given the rulings of the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith, Church of Lukumi Babalau Aye vs. City of Hialeah, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and most recently in EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch, it appears that religious liberty is alive and thriving. In this situation it is almost certainly the rights of LGBT citizens that are under the greatest threat. Moreover, despite what some have claimed about the issue, the Supreme Court does not allow religious rights to trump civil rights. In the 1968 case of Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, and in the 1983 case of Bob Jones University v. United States, the Court ruled that a religious defense could not be used to prohibit black people from an amusement park, or prevent interracial dating at a university. In both of these cases, as well as others, the Court ruled that a “compelling government interest” can supersede religious liberty and civil rights have consistently been one such interest.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post First Church of Cannabis to Open Thanks to Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, check out the most popular articles of the week from Law Street, including the safest and most dangerous metro areas in the county, as well as the Elkhart Four’s case in front of the Indiana Supreme Court.

#1 Crime in America 2015: Top 10 Safest & Most Dangerous Metros in the Midwest

The Springfield, Illinois metro area is the number one most dangerous metro in the Midwest. According to the latest crime data from the FBI, which covers calendar year 2013, the Springfield metro had a rate of 768 violent crimes per 100,000 people. On the other end of the spectrum, the Wausau, Wisconsin metro is the safest in the Midwest with 93 violent crimes per 100,000 people. Read full article here.

#2 Crime in America 2015: Slideshow of the Top 15 Most Dangerous Metro Areas

While crime in the United States has been trending down for quite some time, some metropolitan statistical areas continue to experience relatively high rates of violent crime. According to the latest crime data from the FBI, which covers calendar year 2013, the Memphis metro area leads not only the South in violent crime, but also the country as a whole. Read full article here.

#3 The Elkhart Four Await Indiana Supreme Court Decision

The Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Aaron Hernandez trials have dominated courtroom coverage in recent months. But with guilty convictions being handed down in both cases and Tsarnaev’s sentencing still pending, there’s a case awaiting a decision from the Indiana Supreme Court that deserves America’s attention for a while–the Elkhart Four case. Read full article here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Aaron Hernandez trials have dominated courtroom coverage in recent months. But with guilty convictions being handed down in both cases and Tsarnaev’s sentencing still pending, there’s a case awaiting a decision from the Indiana Supreme Court that deserves America’s attention for a while–the Elkhart Four case.

The “Elkhart Four” was the nickname given to four teenagers from Elkhart County, Indiana who in 2012 were charged with murder after their fifth accomplice, Danzele Johnson, 21, was shot. Johnson was killed by the scared homeowner when the group attempted to burglarize what they thought was an empty home. Levi Sparks, now 20; Jose Quiroz Jr., 19; Blake Layman, 18; and Anthony Sharp Jr., 20, are each currently serving a five-decade sentence in prison, having become convicted murderers without ever killing anyone. If you’re asking how that could even be possible, the answer is a charge called felony murder.

They didn’t kill anyone, but the law says they’re murderers. My story on the #ElkhartFour coming on Sunday. @indystar pic.twitter.com/6dJ4P2UYFS

— Kristine Guerra (@kristine_guerra) April 17, 2015

Felony murder dictates that if someone dies in the commission or attempted commission of a felony everyone responsible for the felony can be charged with first-degree murder. When trying a felony murder case, the prosecutor does not need to prove there was intent to commit a murder, just intent to commit the initial crime–in this case the burglary.

What makes the Elkhart Four case so strange is that in most states felony murder can only be charged if an innocent person is killed, not if the person who is killed is also a perpetrator.

Timothy O’Neill, a law professor at John Marshall Law School in Chicago told the Indianapolis Star,

It’s one thing to say you commit a robbery or a theft. You’re not saying the person is a completely innocent person. Blameworthiness for theft doesn’t necessarily turn a person into a murderer. There’s a disconnect.

In October Layman, Sharp, and Sparks asked for their cases to be transferred to the Indiana Supreme Court. On February 26, 2015 the Supreme Court held oral arguments on the Elkhart case, but the justices have yet to decide whether or not to rule on the case. Quiroz, who was the only one of the four to plead guilty to the charges, has never asked the Court of Appeals to overturn his conviction.

According to the Indianapolis Star, Indiana Public Defender Council Executive Director Larry Landis finds the felony murder law unjust and plans to push for reformative legislation next session, but he admits that “legislators are not likely to support a bill that, in essence, helps people who have committed a crime.” Landis said,

It’s much safer to sponsor a bill that increases the penalty for a crime. No one has ever lost an election for supporting a law to enhance penalty on a criminal.

Now we’re all waiting to see what the Indiana Supreme Court will do. If it decides to rule on the case and grants three of the Elkhart Four an appeal, the decision would give ammo to critics lobbying for the law’s repeal. While the felony murder law was intended to hold people accountable for committing dangerous acts that result in someone’s death, its misses the mark when individuals aren’t culpable. It will be interesting to see what the state Supreme Court decides in this case, but there’s no justice in sentencing teen boys to spend most (if not the rest) of their lives behind bars as convicted murders without even killing anyone.

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 The Elkhart Four Await Indiana Supreme Court Decision appeared first on Law Street.

Amid sustained calls to “fix this now” and the trending Twitter hashtag #boycottindiana, Indiana’s Republican leadership has quietly been maneuvering to maintain the increased discrimination against LGBT residents that Governor Mike Pence‘s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA) enabled. The Indiana legislature voted this week to deny protective provisions that would have ensured that religious protections cannot be used to discriminate against LGBT people. According to Think Progress editor Zack Ford, due to recent legal developments, “outside of the few municipalities with local protections, anti-LGBT discrimination is still legal throughout most of the state.”

And although #boycottindiana is trending hard on Twitter, the RFRA is hardly the only devastating bill to come out of Indiana recently.

But it’s the only one causing majors trends.

Why? One of the big reasons: mainstream (read: overwhelmingly white) LGBT advocates, organizations, and issues have largely gained the support of big businesses and corporations. (Yes, I know that the pizzeria that supported the RFRA made an absurd amount of money from the controversy. But that’s not the systemic trend, which favors corporations making profit off of and cooperating with upper- and middle-class, white LGB people and organizations.)

Whiteness must be decentralized from the LGBT movement. I’m sick of hearing about Leelah Alcorn and not Blake Brockington #HisNameWasBlake

— Ryan Mishler (@storyofryguy) April 9, 2015

So what could be trending under the hashtag #boycottindiana, but is not?

An incredibly scary amendment to Senate Bill 465, which addresses the operations of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, was passed in the Indiana House this week. Though much ire and rage have been focused on the Indiana Republican leadership that was responsible for the RFRA, it was Democratic Representative Terry Goodin who proposed adding the drug testing requirement to the bill.

Drug testing requirements in order to receive welfare fundamentally introduce even greater racism into welfare programs: even though white people tend to use illegal drugs at comparable or even higher rates than people of color, people of color are arrested and imprisoned at disproportionately higher rates for drug related “crimes” than white people. This means that people of color who are welfare recipients are going to be disproportionately targeted by the new provision’s requirement that recipients with histories of drug-related “crimes” be required to undergo testing. These folks will be stripped of their welfare benefits if they fail two tests.

So… Why is the #boycottindiana hashtag not blowing up with rage over this new twist to already-racist policies? Do my fellow white queers think racist laws are alright while homophobic laws are not?

Racial justice is LGBT justice.

So… Where are the trending boycotts against all kinds of racist laws across the country, like the resurgence of Jim Crow-esque laws that suppress the votes of Black and Latina people by mandating ID requirements for voting?

Where is the #boycottwhitenessinLGBTorganizations hashtag? The #boycottmassincarceration hashtag, or the #boycottracism hashtag? The #boycottwhitesupremacy hashtag?

Oh, yes. We can’t boycott those things. They’re too integrated into what makes this country operate.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post There’s Something Scarier Than Religious Freedom Going on in Indiana appeared first on Law Street.

Is teaching yoga in school a violation of students’ and parents’ religious rights? An appeals court in San Diego says “No,” deciding to uphold a ruling against a lawsuit brought by a California family who claimed yoga promoted Hinduism and inhibited Christianity, reports the Guardian.

According to the article, Stephen and Jennifer Sedlock and their two children attempted to stop the Encinitas Union School District from teaching yoga as a gym class, because they felt it was a gateway to Hinduism, and thus inhibiting Christianity. A lawyer for the family, Dean Broyles, stated:

No other court in the past 50 years has allowed public school officials to lead children in formal religious rituals like the Hindu liturgy of praying to, bowing to, and worshipping the sun god,

Despite that argument, the court saw things differently. The court decided in a 3-0 opinion that:

While the practice of yoga may be religious in some contexts, yoga classes as taught in the district are, as the trial court determined, ‘devoid of any religious, mystical, or spiritual trappings.’

The district said it was teaching yoga in a secular way as a means to promote strength, flexibility, and balance. Paul V Carelli IV, a lawyer for the district, reiterated that there were “no rituals occurring in the classroom and no one was worshipping the sun or leading Hindu rites.”

Thanks to Indiana Governor Mike Pence and his “anti-gay bill,” there’s been a lot of national controversy in recent weeks regarding the protection of citizens’ rights to religious freedom. While helping to prevent individuals from being forced to violate their religious beliefs is ultimately a good thing, it becomes a problem when people begin to use it as a defense for banning rather innocuous forms of exercise. While Pence and others hammer out the details of their religious bills, lets hope they at least leave yoga out of the equation.

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 California Court: Yoga Classes Allowed in Schools appeared first on Law Street.

Last week I wrote an article about gaming convention Gen Con threatening to take their expo elsewhere if Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed Senate Bill 101 into law. Gov Pence appeared unphased by the threat of losing big business, quietly signing the controversial bill into law last Thursday. Now three states have joined a list of notable celebrities, politicians, and corporate execs speaking out against the governor’s decision by banning state-funded travel to the state. These actions have resulted in Pence’s announcement that he will work this week to clarify the law so that it does not legalize discrimination.

The bill, which becomes effective July 1, 2015, would prevent individuals in the state from being forced by government entities to violate their religious beliefs. Contention has spawned from critics saying the bill will extend protection to businesses to legally discriminate against LGBT patrons by refusing them service. In a press conference this morning the governor addressed critics, announcing that he will work to fix the law by asking the state assembly to clarify that businesses do not have the right to deny service to anyone; he has no plans to make the state legislation disappear.

When news surfaced that Pence had privately signed the bill, it didn’t take long for a slew of celebrities and public officials to begin voicing their outrage via social media.

Apple is open for everyone. We are deeply disappointed in Indiana’s new law and calling on Arkansas Gov. to veto the similar #HB1228.

— Tim Cook (@tim_cook) March 27, 2015

Indiana’s anti-gay ‘Religious Freedom’ bill signed by Gov. Pence is absurd & insulting. This is 2015. Ridiculous. #RFRA — Larry King (@kingsthings) March 27, 2015

When will conservatives like Mike Pence figure out discriminating against #lgbt under the guise of faith is REALLY bad politics?

— Montel Williams (@Montel_Williams) March 26, 2015

Yesterday, states began taking action against the “anti-gay” bill by banning state-funded travel to Indiana. Connecticut became the first state to boycott Indiana over its Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) when Governor Dan Malloy signed an executive order barring state-funded travel to the state. Malloy announced his decision with the following tweets:

When new laws turn back the clock on progress, we can’t sit idly by. We are sending a message that discrimination won’t be tolerated. -DM

— Governor Dan Malloy (@GovMalloyOffice) March 30, 2015

Two other cities, San Francisco and Seattle, joined Connecticut by imposing similar travel bans in response to the bill. A list of businesses, following in the steps of Gen Con, have also begun to reconsider doing business with the state. Some notable opposition includes Angie’s List, which decided to halt a campus-expansion project in Indianapolis, and $4 billion software corporation Salesforce, whose CEO announced plans to “dramatically reduce our investment” in the state. PayPal co-founder Max Levchin, who also opposes the law, sent a message to his corporate peers telling CNN:

I’m asking my fellow CEOs to look at how they’re thinking about their relationship with the state and evaluate it in terms of the legislation that’s getting signed into law.

Indiana is hardly the first state to introduce RFRA laws; there are currently 20 states that have done so. However, Indiana’s law is “substantially different” according to the Huffington Post, which writes:

While other state RFRAs apply to disputes between a person and a government, Indiana’s law goes further and applies to disputes between private citizens. That means, for example, a business owner could use the law to justify discrimination against customers who might otherwise be protected under law.

The publicity from the bill has cast a negative light on the state, but a coalition of independent merchants in Indiana have joined a new campaign showing support for the LGBT community called Open For Service. Participating companies want customers to know that the bill won’t change the way they do business. The campaign celebrates businesses that oppose discrimination of any type, allowing companies to register with them and order stickers to be displayed in shop windows that read “this business serves everyone.”

The combination of this campaign with the current efforts of celebrities, politicians, and big CEOs are what most likely caused Pence to announce that his office will finally take action. No word yet on what will happen to the religious freedom law if the assembly fails to produce Pence’s requested joint anti-discrimination law this week, but at least the governor is finally attempting, albeit very poorly, to assure citizens that Indiana will be welcome to all.

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 Backlash Over Discriminatory Indiana Law Forces Governor to Clarify appeared first on Law Street.

One of the world’s largest gaming conventions, Gen Con, is taking a stand against anti-gay legislation by threatening to take the expo elsewhere if Indiana’s governor signs a controversial religious freedom bill into law. Gen Con CEO and owner Adrian Swartout recently sent an open letter to Indiana Governor Mike Pence asking him to reconsider his support for Senate Bill 101.

The bill, which passed in the House of Representatives Monday with a 63-31 vote and the Senate on Tuesday with a 40-10 vote, will prohibit state and local governments from “substantially burdening someone’s religious beliefs.” In the letter Swartout writes:

Gen Con proudly welcomes a diverse attendee base, made up of different ethnicities, cultures, beliefs, sexual orientations, gender identities, abilities, and socio-economic backgrounds…

Legislation that could allow for refusal of service or discrimination against our attendees will have a direct negative impact on the state’s economy, and will factor into our decision-making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years.

Supporters of the bill claim it is a safeguard against unnecessary government intrusion on individuals’ religious beliefs, while critics see the bill as sanctioning discrimination against LBGT people. That concern stems from the bill’s ability to protect business owners who don’t want to service same sex couples. House minority Leader Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, who voted no to the bill, shared his opinion with the Indianapolis Star:

It basically says to a group of people you’re second rate, you don’t matter, and if you walk into my store, I don’t have to serve you.

Gen Con, which boasts of being the “original, longest-running and best-attended gaming convention” in the world, provides a substantial economic benefit to the city of Indianapolis, bringing more than $50 million dollars worth of revenue to the city each year. Despite being under contract to host the event in Indianapolis through 2020, the organization hopes to sway the governor by leveraging its economic importance and future business.

As of now Gen Con’s disapproval appears to not have weakened Governor Pence’s resolve to sign the bill. His spokeswoman Kara Brooks responded to the letter telling the Indianapolis Star that “the governor has been clear on where he stands on this issue and we don’t have anything to add at this time.”

If Governor Pence follows through with the bill amidst public outrage and big business disapproval, he will be making a statement that both the city’s economy and the rights of his LGBT constituents bear no importance when it comes protecting so-called “religious freedom.”

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 Gaming Convention Gen Con May Relocate if Indiana Signs Anti-Gay Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Michigan is a lovely state, arguably most famous as the home of the Great Lakes. It is also a state with many strange laws, especially a specific few pertaining to transportation. In Michigan, it is illegal to be drunk while on a train, and cars may not be sold on Sunday. Speaking of Sundays, the last one in June of every year is officially deemed “log cabin day.”

There are myriad laws in Michigan pertaining to the conduct of men and women. For one, adultery is illegal but only punishable if the affected husband or wife files a complaint. Also, men are banned from “seducing and corrupting unmarried girls.” If they do so, they face up to five years in prison.

Not if you’re an unmarried woman, missy!

Animal rights activists will be happy to know that in Michigan it is illegal to kill a dog using a decompression chamber. They would also be happy to know that a law that would have previously angered them has been repealed; at one point, there was a bounty on starlings and crows killed in any “village, township or city” in Michigan. Granted, a three cent bounty (for starlings) and a ten cent bounty (for crows) probably wouldn’t lead many to make them hunting targets, but you never know.

I know you’ve all been anxiously waiting to discover what the dumb laws in Ohio are. Well, the wait is over! Until 2005, breastfeeding was not allowed in public, no matter the state of hunger of the baby. Ohio lawmakers also decided at one point to create a nice and obscure law to make it illegal to “mistreat anything of great importance.” That is quite a subjective term, considering we all generally think of different things as greatly important.

Criminals in Ohio can basically go wild on Sundays and on the Fourth of July. On those days, no civil arrests may be made in the state.

These days, the appearance of food is grossly misrepresented in advertisements and other images. Akron decided to put an end to this by enacting a law banning the display of colored chickens. The city also takes sports safety a bit too seriously and bans skateboarding after dark.

Last but not least in this edition of Dumb Laws in the United States: Indiana. Mathematicians must have argued substantially over when to stop reciting the digits in Pi, as there is a law officially deeming its value as three.

If an Indiana man wants to impress a lady by showing off his macho nature skills, he cannot do so by catching a fish with his bare hands. He also had better not walk around looking aroused–another no-no according to Indiana law.

Lawmakers must really believe into the power of prayer as those who pray for their dependents don’t have to pay for their medical care. And liquor laws in Indiana redefine ridiculous. Looking for a one-stop shop for White Russian ingredients? You won’t find everything you need in Indiana, where liquor stores may not sell milk. You’ll also have to go elsewhere for cold soda as a mixer, since liquor stores there cannot sell that either.

Not if you’re an Indiana liquor store, you don’t!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Michigan, Ohio, & Indiana 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.

For 7 years, Rennie Gibbs was charged with the murder of her stillborn child. But last week, a Mississippi judge threw out the case. This wasn’t a “normal” murder charge- it involved the concept of fetal harm.

In this case, Rennie gave birth to a stillborn daughter, whose umbilical cord was wrapped around her neck. While tragic, cases like this do happen, and mothers are never charged with a crime, much less murder.

But the twist is that Rennie’s daughter tested positive for traces of a byproduct of cocaine- which is different than the drug itself- at the time of her death. When the medical examiner found this out, he ruled the death a homicide. Shortly after, charges were filed against Rennie, and only now, seven years later, was the case thrown out.

The charges of second-degree murder brought against Rennie are known as “depraved heart murder” in Mississippi. This is constituted by actions “eminently dangerous to others” and “regardless of human life” even if unintentional.

No one thinks taking drugs while pregnant is healthy, but is it enough to result in a murder charge? Not according to one Mississippi judge. The case was recently thrown out on the grounds that there was no conclusive proof that the drug usage during Rennie’s pregnancy caused the baby’s death. Furthermore, taking the drugs was not so egregious of an act that it constituted murder. At most, the judge ruled that charges of manslaughter could be re-filed.

And while Rennie’s case is a tragedy in itself, it isn’t an anomaly. Over the past few decades, there have been a number of these “fetal harm” cases that target mothers who either lose children during pregnancy, or have stillborn children.

One woman in Iowa was jailed for two days after she fell down the stairs and suffered a miscarriage. She was going to be charged with “feticide” which, in Iowa, is when someone “intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with the knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person, after the end of the second trimester.” In this instance, the woman had to purposefully fall down the stairs with the intention of killing the fetus. Sound crazy? There’s more.

One woman in Indiana found herself in jail for over a year after she tried to kill herself while pregnant. Though she survived, the child did not. And three months after her suicide attempt in 2010, she was arrested. Though she was supposed to originally be charged with murder, in 2013 she plead to a lesser count of misdemeanor criminal recklessness.

But something is missing from all three of these cases: intent.

There was no proof in any of these cases, and certainly not enough to convict, that the women intended for their children to die- and in most murder cases, that’s a necessary element. So why did the prosecutors move forward with these charges in the first place? Mississippi, Iowa, and Indiana are all very conservative states when it comes to the rights of unborn children. And there are certainly merits to the points brought up regarding if a fetus deserves rights like those of humans. But there is something inherently wrong about making examples out of women who clearly made accidents, or acted negligently, but without a clear disregard for human life.

These cases aren’t even about abortion. They are about people who don’t know how the law works, or don’t care about how the law works, trying to take advantage of loopholes and inconsistencies to advance their agendas. No one- not mothers, not children, or the judicial system, can be helped from people like medical examiners who ignore scientific evidence to prove a point.

This debate goes beyond the rights of fetuses and mothers; it expands into personal vendettas and ideologies getting in the way of practicing good law. By targeting women with unfairly applied laws, no one wins in the end.

 [Mississippi Bill] [Pro Publica] [RH Reality Check] [Huffington Post] [Iowa Law]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fetal Harm: A New Kind of Crime? appeared first on Law Street.