38

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 ...


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 ...


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

Your understanding of “legal tender” is flawed There is plenty of case law to show that governments can place reasonable restrictions on payment by legal tender up to and including excluding it entirely. Picano v Borough of Emerson explains this very succinctly: Finally, there is no basis for concluding that defendants violated 31 U.S.C. § 5103. Section ...


4

The situation is that Executive Order 2020-33 is no more, and a new order, 2020-68 exists. The old orders to stay home are now copied under this order, but it may be necessary for her to re-issue (a subset of) the orders so that they are pursuant to #68 and not #33 (live by the technicality, die by the technicality). If she does not do that quickly, I expect ...


3

The basic reason that they are allowed to carry weapons is the First and Second Amendments, meaning that you can express yourself, and you can carry weapons. There are various minimal limitations on the right to free speech, so that you can't threaten a person's life; there are more limits on the right to bear arms. In both cases, laws limiting the exercise ...


3

Since violation of the order is a misdemeanor, you may report it to the local police. It is up to them, and the district attorney, to decide whether this is important enough that they will take action. If you want your name to not be associated with the report, you can try reporting anonymously, though that may require mailing an anonymous letter to the ...


3

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750 regulates what is often known as eavesdropping or wiretapping. The core prohibition is §539c, which says Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or ...


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

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 ...


1

tl;dr In isolation, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) appears to operate as a permanent ban, though affected persons may seek permits and appeal a subsequent denial. Background 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) is the law on sales: It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to ...


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 ...


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