Absolutes . . .

. . . and easy answers . . . 

(http://employment.findlaw.com/employment-discrimination/religion-in-the-workplace.html)
". . . Under the First Amendment, Americans enjoy two freedoms with respect to religion: the right to be free from a government-imposed religion, and a right to practice any religion. While private employers are not bound by the Constitution's restrictions on government, they are subject to federal and state laws that ban religious discrimination in employment. Given the number of employed persons and the variety of religious faiths in this country, and the freedom we enjoy to express our views, the subject of religious discrimination continues to pose tough questions for employers and the courts. . ."


If religious discrimination in employment is banned by federal and state laws, should a company be allowed to discriminate against a specific group of human beings (gays, lesbians, transgender individuals?) which has equal rights with the company federal and state laws by refusing to provide services to them?

What do you think?
Tell me at
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html  or at
http://www.ohomusic.com 

My latest solo offering, No Frills, is now available at - No Frills

(To Access all Ray Jozwiak - Gonzo Piano music you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser:  http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/RayJozwiak)

Get your copy of OHO's  Where Words Do Not Reach now!
The Ocean City Ditty Video is now on YouTube
Also, be sure to visit: www.rayjozwiak.com and www.ohomusic.com

Tweet  

Follow me on Blogarama

Citizens . . .

. . . United . . .


(from http://reclaimdemocracy.org/who-are-citizens-united/)
The Court majority (Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) argued:
1.    barring independent political spending amounts to squelching free speech protected by the First Amendment.
2.    the First Amendment protects not just a person’s right to speak, but the act of speech itself, regardless of the speaker. Therefore the First Amendment protects the speech of corporations and unions, whether we consider them people or not.
3.    although government has the authority to prevent corruption or “the appearance of corruption,” it has no place in determining whether large political expenditures are either of those things, so it may not impose spending limits on that basis.
4.    the public has the right to hear all available information, and spending limits prevent information from reaching the public.

The Court minority (Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor) argued:
1.    the First Amendment protects only individual speech, not speech by associations of individuals.
2.    government may prevent corruption, and campaign spending can be corrupt when it buys influence over legislators. Therefore government may impose spending limits on corporations and unions.
3.    government may prevent the appearance of corruption, which undermines public confidence in democracy. Limits on corporate and union political spending are an expression of that authority.
4.    the public has the right to hear all available information, and when corporations spend money individuals can’t match, messages from corporations drown out messages from others, and that information fails to reach the public.

What do you think?
Tell me at
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html  or at
http://www.ohomusic.com 


OHO's "Ocean City Ditty," the CD single is now available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/oho4
(and, if you're in town, at Trax On Wax on Frederick Rd. in Catonsville, MD) OHO is Jay Graboski, David Reeve & Ray Jozwiak.  Please Visit http://www.ohomusic.com 


My latest solo offering, Just More Music by Ray Jozwiak, featuring original, instrumental piano music is now available at - Just More Music by Ray Jozwiak

(To Access all Ray Jozwiak - Gonzo Piano music you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser:  http://http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/RayJozwiak)

Also, be sure to visit:
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet  

News . . .

. . . outlets. . .

(from 935 Lies; The Future of Truth and the Decline of America's Moral Integrity by Charles Lewis)
". . . But here's what troubles (Jane) Kirtley: "I fear that 'big media' are becoming increasingly irrelevant in this equation. . . You know as well as I do that the big First Amendment cases of the 1960s through '80s were mostly fought and won by the 'legacy press.' I am not at all sure that will continue to be the case. And this is significant because if the legacy media don't do it, I'm not sure who will step in." The reality, she added, is that if today's news media owners "don't see that the First Amendment is the prerequisite to making money, then they won't" take risks, publish, and defend their legal right to do so later in court. "The legions of bloggers are good at making noise, but I'm not sure they'll join forces to litigate-assuming that, as a group, they'd have enough money to do it.". . . "

What do you think?
Tell me at
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html  or at
http://www.ohomusic.com 


OHO's "Ocean City Ditty," the CD single is now available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/oho4
(and, if you're in town, at Trax On Wax on Frederick Rd. in Catonsville, MD) OHO is Jay Graboski, David Reeve & Ray Jozwiak.  Please Visit http://www.ohomusic.com 


My latest solo offering, Just More Music by Ray Jozwiak, featuring original, instrumental piano music is now available at - Just More Music by Ray Jozwiak

(To Access all Ray Jozwiak - Gonzo Piano music you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser:  http://http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/RayJozwiak)

Also, be sure to visit:
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet  

Marc J. Randazza, a Las Vegas-based First Amendment attorney and managing partner of the Randazza Legal Group,  has in interesting take on the recent media storm NBA Clippers' owner Donald Sterling. 

First, many have questioned whether or not Sterling's First Amendment rights were violated.  Randazza says his First Amendment rights remain intact. The First Amendment protects you from punishment by the government because of your speech. The NBA is a private club, and it can discipline Sterling all it wants.  The government is not imposing the punishment in this situation.  Neither does the First Amendment insulate you from criticism. In fact, that's the First Amendment in action. 

Going one further though, Randazza says that what happened to Sterling may have been illegal and was morally wrong. In California, you can't record a conversation without the knowledge or consent of both parties. The recording featuring Sterling and V. Stiviano may be the result of a crime. We all say things in private that we might not say in public. Conversely, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy made his own stupid and bigoted statements to the world by choice.  He deserves every ounce of obloquy heaped upon him. Complain about the National Security Agency spying on all of us yet we condone giving our closest friends the ability to do worse.  

"The Sterling story is about how there is no more privacy. We live in a world where you can share your intimate photos with your lover, and they will wind up on a "revenge porn" website.

We live in a world where our intimate conversations will be recorded and blasted to billions of listeners. We live in a world where, say a gold digger can spy on her sugar daddy, and the world says that the creepy old guy is the bad guy."

(source:  http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/30/opinion/randazza-sterling-privacy/index.html?hpt=hp_c2)

What do you think?
Tell me at
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html 

OHO's "Ocean City Ditty," the CD single is now available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/oho4
(and, if you're in town, at Trax On Wax on Frederick Rd. in Catonsville, MD)

My latest solo release, '2014', can be downloaded digitally at:

(or you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser:  http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/rayjozwiak4)

Also, be sure to visit:
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet

"The First Amendment. . .

. . .DOES NOT bar religion from the public square and from government in general. Under the First Amendment, the resulting separation of Church and State puts restrictions on government but does not put restrictions on religion. . ."

(reaction to a recent blog by Howard Bess. See bottom)
The good Reverend seems to hit it on the head on a regular basis. He says that the current crop of republican presidential candidates, as well as the media 'reporting' on them, all miss the boat on their interpretation of the First Amendment. He would like to know how the religion of the candidates informs their views and intentions with regard to the following issues. "As president, would the candidate pursue the teachings of his religion?"

WAR AND PEACE - religions generally favor a path toward peace

POPULATION CONTROL, BIRTH CONTROL, AND ABORTION SERVICES - how long will the earth be able to sustain the needs of this huge (and growing) population so highly encouraged by their right to life 'philosophy'?

FULL RIGHTS FOR GAY, LESBIAN, TRANSGENDERED AND BISEXUAL PERSONS - many/most organized religions do not favor these just and necessary rights

PRESERVATION OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE WORLD’S ENVIRONMENT - what will the candidate do when scientific knowledge directly confronts the teachings of his religion?

PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION - parochial schools have been known to practice discrimination

PROVISION FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE LESS FORTUNATE - entitlements and being 'thy brother's keeper'

The Rev. Howard Bess is a retired American Baptist minister, who lives in Palmer, Alaska. His email address is HYPERLINK "mailto:hdbss@mtaonline.net" hdbss@mtaonline.net

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND READING HIM!




What do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html


Download your
very own copy of
ANOTHER SHOT
by Ray Jozwiak

Please Visit
http://www.rayjozwiak.com


Tweet


Top Stories