Christian Bale and Henry Cavill might be cute by Hollywood standards, but by feline standards, they’re not exactly the cat’s meow. For superheroes that will claw apart your heart with cuteness, there’s Cooper and Pancake.
The hairball-fighting duo do what cat superheroes do best: chase bad guy toys, nibble Kryptonite-free treats, and use the litterbox under the Batcave stairs.
For fake royalty, the most important thing is etiquette and protocol. During his visit to England, President Obama gave a toast to the Queen of England. But the band started early, and Obama was caught in the middle of his toast.
When he finished, he gestured to the Queen, but she and everyone else didn’t react at all-the ever important song was playing. So the President of America looked like a fool, and only after the song was there an awkward recognition of the toast.
Read more: http://www.viralviralvideos.com/2011/05/25/obama-talks-during-god-save-the-queen/
Today in Alabama, Republican voters go to the polls in the runoff U.S. Senate primary race between incumbent Luther Strange and former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. Moore is known for his high profile battles in which he refused to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Supreme Court building and his defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling. Al.com reports that in his final campaign rally last night, Moore told a large crowd:
President Trump yesterday issued a Proclamation (full text) (press release) (White House background document) setting out a more targeted version of his travel ban. The travel restrictions in the prior ban expired yesterday, while the refugee restrictions in the prior ban extend to Oct. 24. The new ban focuses around a
The EEOC last week filed suit against a Texas physician who required employees to attend daily meetings involving Bible study and the application of religious principles to employees’ personal lives. The complaint (full text) in EEOC v. Shepherd, (ND TX, filed 9/20/2017) seeks relief on behalf of 4 employees who were dismissed over objections to the meetings or over personal lifestyles. Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.
According to the East Bay Times, on Sept. 11 the Albany, California Lion’s Club filed suit in federal court against the city and several city officials in a dispute involving a 20-foot cross in the city’s Albany Hill Park. The cross was constructed in 1971 on privately-owned land. It was transferred to the city in 1973 as part of a controversial land deal in which the city created Albany Hill Park. Before the transfer to the city, the Lion’s Club was granted an easement to allow it to maintain the cross. In December 2015, the city cut power to the cross, contending that a utility line running to it was unsafe. It cut power again in 2016 until the local utility PG
In Vo v. Mason, (CA App., Sept. 19, 2017), a California state appellate court held that plaintiff Thuy Thanh Vo was likely to prevail on her state constitutional invasion of privacy suit against a neighbor and those working with him who are trying to prevent Vo from using her property as a Buddhist Temple without zoning approval. Posing as someone who wanted to study Buddhism and pray, one of the defendants who is a private investigator took photos of religious ceremonies at Vo’s property. The court’s finding of a probability of success led the court to deny a SLAPP motion to dismiss Vo’s suit.
From SSRN:Rahman Apalara, Striking a Balance: Freedom of Expression and the Prohibition of Hate Speech and Offensive Remarks, (September 11, 2017).Nadia N. Sawicki, A Common Law Duty to Disclose Conscience-Based Limitations on Medical Practice, (Chapter 13 in Law, Religion, and Health in the United States (Lynch, Holly Fernandez, I. Glenn Cohen, and Elizabeth Sepper eds., 2017).Nomi Maya Stolzenberg, From Eternity to Here: In Search of the Origins of Secularism, (USC Legal Studies Research Papers Series No. 17-20 (2017)).Adam J. White, Justice Scalia’s Soulcraft as Statecraft, (June 15, 2017).Noa Ben-Asher, Faith-Based Emergency Powers, (Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, Forthcoming).Steven J. Heyman, The Light of Nature: John Locke, Natural Rights, and the Origins of American Religious Liberty, (Marquette Law Review, Forthcoming).Terri Lynn Helge, Rejecting Charity: Why the IRS Denies Tax Exemption to 501(C)(3) Applicants, (Pittsburgh Tax Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2016).From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):Ming-Sung Kuo
In Paliotta v. State of Nevada ex rel Nevada Department of Corrections, (NV Sup. Ct., Sept. 14, 2017), the Nevada Supreme Court held that the trial court erred when it used the centrality test instead of the sincerely held belief test to decide if an inmate of the Thelemic faith was entitled to receive a kosher diet or a traditional Egyptian diet.In Brown v. Solomon, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150611 (WD NC, Sept. 15, 2017), a North Carolina federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with his efforts to reinstate separate religious services for Jehovah’s Witnesses.In Neely-Bey Tarik-El v. Conley, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151714 (SDIN, Sept. 19, 2017), an Indiana federal district court dismissed on qualified immunity grounds a suit by an inmate claiming that his rights were violated when prison authorities disciplined him for violating a resolution of the Moorish Science Temple of America prohibiting him from actively engaging in MSTA religious services.In Sabin v. Karber, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152476 (WD MI, Sept. 20, 2017), a Michigan federal district court dismissed complaints by a Messianic Christian prison ministry that mail it sent into prisons was being rejected.In Evans v. Lopez, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153274 (ED CA, Sept. 15, 2017), a California federal magistrate judge allowed an inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was denied Ramadan meals that he had bee approved to receive.
In Telescope Media Group v. Lindsey, (D MN, Sept. 29, 2017), a Minnesota federal district court in a 63-page opinion rejected a challenge to a provision of the Minnesota Human Rights Act that requires plaintiffs, owners of a videography business that plans to offer wedding videos, to serve same-sex couples. Responding to plaintiffs’ free speech arguments, the court said in part:Posting language on a website telling potential customers that a business will discriminate based on sexual orientation is part of the act of sexual orientation discrimination itself; as conduct carried out through language, this act is not protected by the First Amendment.Plaintiffs also argued that the law, as applied, unconstitutionally affects the content of their videos. However the court concluded:The MHRA’s application to the Larsens’ wedding video business, as a content neutral regulation of conduct with an incidental effect on speech, survives intermediate scrutiny.The court went on to reject plaintiffs’ free exercise challenge, finding that the law is neutral and of general applicability.