Bill Handel and the Indiana law

Bill Handel is the KFI in Los Angeles and also on the weekends I hear him on Indiana stations. He does a radio program called Handel on the law. People call in to his show for “marginal legal advice” which usually means he makes fun of them. He also has a website where one can find an attorney for serious legal issues.

Frequently people will call in there after having been fired (in California) and thinking they were wrongly terminated they will ask his advice on what to do. He always says that in California one can be fired for any reason or no reason. If employer fires you for an illegal reason they will simply say that they fired you for a legal reason. They will lie. So the answer is always “you have no case”.

And I was thinking about this, and the controversy over the new law in Indiana, and I thought these are similar circumstances.

If someone says no thanks to a customer, they decline the job, be it a florist, or a cake maker or a photographer, no one really knows why, except them. And they would likely not say why, if it were discriminating, they would say it is for another reason. If only to prevent hurt feelings.

Deming said many important things are unknown and unknowable. I suggest to you the private thoughts of a person are unknown and unknowable unless they self incriminate.

The other point I want to make is that every wedding related job you can think of has the economy version and the deluxe version. So consider this, say I am taking on some part time photo work. Customer calls and it is a gay wedding and they want me to photograph the wedding.

The economy package is a single photo of the wedding party. I am fine with that. We make a deal.

But why stop there. The midlevel package involves the photographer following them around all night at the reception. A photo of them feeding each other the wedding cake. Now, if I say yes to the economy package, but no to this, am I discriminating? Or am I being reasonable, because I am old and I don’t like to stay out late, or be around loud music. Can I say no to some level of service, just because it is too much and I don’t want to do it?

But we could go even further. The happy couple makes a very good living and they are infact independently wealthy, and they say what they really want is for me to follow them around taking pictures for their first month together. They will pay me my regular salary, and I have enough vacation to cover a month. Now if I say no, am I discriminating? Can I say no to some level just because I don’t want to. I say “sorry, I don’t offer that level of service”. Is it my business? Or because they are a gay couple am I forced to do this. Or I could send them to Todd Green, he would probably be fine with it.

What if they want me to do some boudoir photography. Do I have to do it? Do I need a reason to say no?

Now I know you are thinking that would never happen. But I gave you several levels, the beginning level reasonable, and the ending level crazy. But who is to say what one will do, what job one will accept, except for the person who is going to do the work. Only the person being burdened with the work can say yes or no, and how much it will cost. Unless you are a physician, but that is another subject.

Do you really think gov can make that call, or should make that call? Should my customers be able to tell me what my limits are?

Now they can take me to court, even with this law. And the judge will decide what is reasonable. But with this law, if they lose, they pay my expenses. And with this law, against my religion can be a defense. But do you even need a defense to say what you will or won’t do? You are your own free person. You live in a free country. Who can tell you what you have to do in your own business?

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

A comparison of the Indiana Religious Freedom law with the model Federal Law.

In this document is the text of the federal 1993 and the Indiana law for easy comparison and study. Federal law is in bold, Indiana law is in italics. The federal law was passed with only 3 no votes, and signed by Bill Clinton in 1993.

The main idea

(a) Findings

The Congress finds that—

(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;

(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;

(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;

(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and

(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.

(b) Purposes

The purposes of this chapter are—

(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and

(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

 

(a) In general

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Exception

Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(c) Judicial relief

A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

 

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person’s invocation of this chapter.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person’s exercise 

of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Definitions

As used in this chapter—

(1) the term “government” includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States, or of a covered entity;

(2) the term “covered entity” means the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and possession of the United States;

(3) the term “demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion; and

(4) the term “exercise of religion” means religious exercise, as defined in section 2000cc–5 of this title.

 

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) “Establishment Clause” refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) “Granting”, used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, “demonstrates”means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, “exercise of religion” includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, “governmental entity” includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, “person” includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and 

(B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

What the law applies to

(a) In general

This chapter applies to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after November 16, 1993.

(b) Rule of construction

Federal statutory law adopted after November 16, 1993, is subject to this chapter unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference to this chapter.

(c) Religious belief unaffected

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief.

 

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Does not change 1st Amendment

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address that portion of the First Amendment prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion (referred to in this section as the “Establishment Clause”). Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, shall not constitute a violation of this chapter. As used in this section, the term “granting”, used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.

Boss can make you work on Sunday

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What Deming wrote about evals.

W. Edward Deming made a list of the seven deadly diseases that afflict corporate America, number 3 is “Evaluation of performance, merit rating, or annual review”.

Now, I do not enjoy writing evals for myself, or for anyone else. And mine are usually pretty easy to write, compared with most. But why would he write something like that?

Deming wrote “It nourishes short term performance, annihilates long term planning, builds fear, demolishes teamwork, nourishes rivalry and politics”

And continued “ It leaves people bitter, crushed, bruised, battered, desolate, despondant, dejected, felling inferior, some even depressed, unfit for work for weeks after receipt of rating, unable to comprehend why they are inferior. It is unfair, as it ascribes to the people in a group, differences that may be caused totally by the system that they work in.” (From chap 3, Out of the Crisis, W Edwards Deming).

At old job I remember talking to my co-worker after his first eval. I told him that no one gets good evals here, it is just politics. He was a little down for sure. Another time on the phone with an old friend she told me that she thought that bosses write that we are terrible workers in our evals to keep from paying us what we are worth. Its the man keeping us down…

So the other day, I am putting gas in Beverly’s car, and I get an inspiration, I wrote it down in my wheel book, what would Deming suggest should take the place of the annual evaluation?

Because that is the criticism. I click around on the internet and people write, well, he said not to do it, but he did not say what to do instead. And I am thinking maybe a report of how well one is following the 14 points, and how well one is avoiding the 7 deadly diseases.

So here is the format of the Deming…well, can’t call it an evaluation. Not sure what to call it yet. It could be a reflective document, maybe for ones own use. Maybe not even show the boss. The Deming annual reflection document.

The 14 Points:

1. Have you created constancy of purpose for product and service?

2. Have you adopted the new philosophy (or doing it the way we always did it).

3. Have you ceased dependence on inspection to achieve quality.

4. Did you shop on quality and not just price for everything you sourced?

4a. Are you working with fewer suppliers, or one supplier, making them a partner?

5. Did you improve any of your processes?

5a. Did you chart all your processes?

5c. Did you use the charts?

6. Did you create, and allow time for training of your workers?

7. Did you lead (and follow) as appropriate?

8. Did you drive out fear?

9. Did you break down barriers between areas?

10. Did you eliminate stupid slogans and targets for the work force?

11. Did you eliminate numerical quotas for the workers and goals for management?

12. Did you remove barriers to pride of workmanship and eliminate the annual merit rating system?

13. Did you institute a system of education and self improvement?

14. Did you spread the gospel and put everyone to work to accomplish the transformation of the company.

Hold on a minute…

That last one, number 14. Now right there is the problem with Deming. Because most of us are little wheels, not big wheels. And if we try to change things, it would not go well for us. In fact that is one of the big problems that Deming points out about conventional evals, is they only reward people working the old system, not the people who are shaking things up.

Well then, do what you can, even if it is on the down low. And I know, we will all get goals and evals this year, because the big boss is not going to read the Deming book.

I remember talking to old boss about evals, it was time to do them, and I did not want to do them,  I said “ you know what Deming said about evals, right?” He didn’t. We had to do them anyway.  Right up there with death and taxes.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Is it ever ok to go over the bosses head?

Long long ago, in a company far, far away, I remember sitting in a room with my bosses boss, and several other wise advisers. The big boss had decided to replace some old equipment with new equipment. Good, right? New equipment needed to be tested and programmed. Could take months, and since we had never used that equipment before, it might prove unsuitable to the task. Well, still not bad, we could leave the old gear in place while we ramp up the new gear, right? Wrong.

No, big boss was going to remove the old equipment before the new equipment even arrived. Hmrmp… And, that equipment was heavily used, we could not afford to be without it. It would without question impact production.

Now this was such a bad decision, I was certain someone would be fired over it. Not necessarily the guy who made the call, but someone left holding the bag, likely me or my boss.

In the aftermath of this great disaster, it was suggested that one of us should have gone over his head, and said something to the plant manager. Unthinkable…but maybe not.

Having spent so many years in the Navy, I would never jump the chain. But maybe someone who had worked as a civilian all their life might have a different take.

What would I do if my division officer told me to go down in engineering and drill a hole through the bottom of the ship? Well, I would not do it. Probably not tell on him either though. Let him bring me up on charges.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What is Indiana like?

We are now Hoosiers,  Indiana is great.

The traffic is light but slow.   Everyone is overly friendly and they call us Hun, or Darlin.   The land is flat and mostly planted with corn.

The rent is about half of what it costs in Los Angeles.   Gas is about a dollar a gallon cheaper.

To buy a watermelon,  you stop at this big barn like structure along the road to work (31).   There is no one around so you pick out a nice big one from the table there. The sign says $5,  you find a 5 in your wallet.   Another sign directs you to push the money through the slot so it falls into the barn on the other side of the wall.   (It is just a slot,  not like a vending machine that would grab the bill and pull it).

It is getting cold here.  A couple mornings there has been a little frost on the car.

We have neighbors on each side.  One has waved to me and the other stopped to talk to me and introduce himself.

Indiana is much like home.  Only about 5 hours further south.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Cancer Prevention

 

Since Dad became ill I have been investigating cancer treatment and I believe the truth is that you can add B17 to your diet and avoid cancer.  Further people could be cured by the purified medicinal form which is not legal in the USA but is available in other countries including Mexico and Germany.

 

One of the quotes from the book is a  cancer doctor asking about how one other doctor cured his cancer.  He was asking because his wife was sick with it.  The doc that had been cured with B17 asked him “why don’t you give her chemo-therapy” (being a sarcastic … because that is the treatment the cancer doc usually gave his patients).  The cancer doc responded that “he would never give a friend or family chemo treatment.”

I was ready to die rather than submit to chemo in 2005 when they thought I had bone cancer.  Death is truly better than chemo.   People survive disease in spite of chemo and radiation,  not because of it.   But the book indicates B17 actually helps quite a lot with the pain anyway…

Here is a video with the short version of the book “World without Cancer”.  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4312930190281243507

Suggest you add fresh  apricots to your diet,  and this is important,  ya gotta crack the pit like a nut and eat what is inside the pit.  It looks kind of like an almond.  It tastes a little bitter.  10 or 12 a day will not hurt you.  You may read some places that they are toxic but I have eaten them myself and they are not toxic or harmful.  Also there is a little country where that is about all they eat and they are fine there,  no cancer.

http://www.cytopharma.com/

Look here for more info.

 

http://www.hunzaorigin.eu/

 

Apple seeds also contain B17.  Probably best to eat the seeds along with the fleshy part of the apple as I don’t know how many of those would be too many.  As long as you eat them with the rest of the apple you could not eat too many.

 

 

The book is called “world without cancer” and can be found on Amazon here.

 

Or Abebooks.com here  http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?isbn=0912986190&sts=t&x=57&y=18

Be healthy,

 

D

 

 


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

California Ballot Proposals 2012

There are two proposals on the ballot for tomorrow.

Prop 29,  the tobacco tax, pretends to take money from evil smokers to help them by spending the money on curing cancer.   Big tobacco is spending millions to defeat it.   For myself,  the issues are bigger government and higher taxes.  Does not matter what is being taxed.  NO ON 29.

Prop 28 pretends to REDUCE the time that career politicians can spend in office.   In fact it INCREASES the time they can spend in the SAME OFFICE.  At present,  they have to win a DIFFERENT OFFICE in the other house to reach 14 years.  If this passes they can do all of 12 years in the same office or house.   Those guys are so sneaky.   NO ON 28.

Almost always the safe thing to do is vote no on proposals.   Always big money and sneaky people behind them.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What is California like?

There are two things that stand out in California at the present time, traffic and the costs.

People say,  we pay for the good weather in increased costs.    The weather is always dry and sunny.   Sometimes too warm.   Always need air conditioning.   The saving grace of California is the good weather.

The traffic is nuts.  When driving at rush hour,  in the big city,  trying to pull out onto a busy road,  that is what it is like, in the middle of the night, in the parking lot of a closed business anywhere in California.   Matters not where you drive,  or when you drive. The traffic is always way beyond bad.   Get in the car at the grocery store, way out in the back 40, get ready to pull out, here comes a car…unbelievable.

The cost of everything is about double, or worse.  Rent is double. Car insurance is more than double.  Gas is $1 a gallon higher than the rest of the country.    Taxes are among the highest of all the states.

The only thing where the costs are lower is college.   College costs here are subsidized by the state so they remain low,  hence the sky high taxes.  They get ya one way or the other.

I think I could put up with quite a bit of weather for a break in rent and taxes.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Dad watch

Dad is sick in the hospital.   Family is taking turns watching him overnight.  I have watch tonight.  He has been sleeping a lot.

Brother Rick was here.  He was showing him photos on the computer.  It would get him talking,  telling old stories.

Not much that we can do,  just be with him.  Be there in case he needs something.

Off duty section went home at 2000.  Now just Dad and I.  He woke up about 2010.   Did some arm stretching,  some shoulder massage and ate a big cup of ice cream.   Nurse turned him in the bed and gave him the night night meds.  I think he is going to sleep.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ALERTS TO THREATS IN 2012 EUROPE : BY JOHN CLEESE

This came on the email from Jaynie.  John Cleese is a hoot.  I really miss the 80′s and Monty Python.

ALERTS TO THREATS IN 2012 EUROPE : BY JOHN CLEESE

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Libya , Egypt and Syria and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved”. Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even “A Bit Cross”.

The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance”. The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from “Pissed Off” to “Let’s get the Bastards”. They don’t have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide”. The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender”. The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France ‘s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing”. Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides”.

The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniforms and Sing Marching Songs”. They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbour” and “Lose”.

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels .

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from “No worries” to “She’ll be right, Mate”. Two more escalation levels remain: “Crikey! I think we’ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!” and “The barbie is cancelled”. So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.

– John Cleese – British writer, actor and tall person.
A final thought: ” Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment