37

The law doesn't distinguish between two Christians with divergent beliefs, or between an atheist and a Christian (obviously with divergent beliefs). The law simply does not care what religion you have, or whether you have one. The law just says "follow the law!". The complication is that part of the First Amendment which says that the law is to be neutral ...


7

This question fundamentally is not about religion in any way. Based on your question, Christine would not be discriminating against people from Ann's own sect, only against transgender people. If Ann has reason to believe that Christine will behave in a discriminatory way to transgender people, Ann can legitimately exclude her to prevent harm to other ...


6

The state health codes applicable to food are here esp. ch. V and here. The primary focus of those health codes is preventing the introduction of toxic substances or pathogens. There is obviously no law against serving meat, nor is there any law against half-and-half pizza. The only possible prospect for a health law addressing your interest would be via the ...


5

The situation described could lead to a suit for "Intrusion of solitude" or "invasion of seclusion" one of the torts classed under "Invasion of privacy" The state of Michigan recognizes this tort, and in Tobin v. Mich. Civil Serv. Comm‘n, 331 N.W.2d 184, 189 (Mich. 1982). the Michigan Supreme court said that the elements of this tort are: (1) the ...


4

Federal law isn't yet settled on whether employers can discriminate based on sexual orientation (see the other answer), so instead let's take a look at Michigan state and local laws: Based on my reading of this Wikipedia page, it appears that the 1967 "Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act" (pdf) has, as of 2018, been interpreted by the Michigan Civil Rights ...


4

What discrimination? As explained in Conflict between a religious belief that accounts for the existence of transgender people vs. one that doesn't the Constitutional protection of the Free Exercise Clause applies to the exercise of a deeply held belief (religious or not). So, let's accept that a person believes that certain sexual practices or gender ...


4

I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds like a clear-cut case of religious discrimination to me. You say in a follow-up comment, "I think it can't be religious discrimination because the company owner is also a Christian." But no, that's not how the law works. Discrimination on the basis of religion is illegal no matter how close or far apart the people involved ...


2

The theory would be that because of federal law prohibiting employers from discriminating on the basis of religion, an employer would have to make a reasonable accommodation to the religious employee's requirements. Thus if your religion prohibits working on Friday, if it is reasonable to do so, the employer must allow you to work some other day. However, if ...


2

This was a recent risk seminar topic, and the suggestion was to make a best effort to keep the walk clear. However the recommended approach was to advise the municipality, in writing, more than once, about the observed risk. For example, if there is a lifted slab which poses a trip hazard, or an area where sinking pavement or cracked pavement which causes ...


2

It depends on the law in your town. The municipality would be responsible for maintaining sidewalks, unless pursuant to that law, the "require the owners and occupants of a lot or premises to remove all snow and ice from the sidewalks in front...", which puts the burden on you. A person is generally required to exercise reasonable care when walking in winter ...


2

they refuse to honor right to mitigate damage laws It is unclear whether you mean that the lease disavows the landlord's duty to mitigate damages. If so, that would be in violation of state law, thereby rendering the lease unenforceable (at least in part) or the landlord in breach of contract. MCL 554.633(1)reads: A rental agreement shall not include a ...


1

The matter has not been definitively decided. At the federal and state levels, there are interpretations (by administrative agencies and courts) of existing law which say that covered, non-exempt employers may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. There are also interpretations that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause. The only ...


1

Your actual inquiry boils down to the statutory interpretation of the aforementioned excerpts. A surcharge for additional roommates does not violate these statutes, since "being domiciled with" does not mean and does not imply "living in the same bedroom". Your knowledge that "X is Y'parent" is not discouraging you from renting your unit to them. In fact, I ...


1

Firstly, save everything. All messages on all platforms. Take screenshots where you can. If they have made threats against your life, report them to the police. If you are under the age of 18 in the photo, report distribution of child pornography to the police. You can also contact many social networks and ask them to block the specific image. Refer to ...


1

First of all I am goingn to assume a US-basis, becauae the question seems to describe a US-based understanding. If this nis not a US jurisdiction, then this may not apply, or not fully. Secondly, there will be some variation by state within the US, but most US states have rather similar laws on this topic. Thirdly, as the question notes, the details of the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible