- Quickdraw McLaw
- 50 Comments
- 68 Views
- Clark County is approved for 80% capacity starting Saturday. [Las Vegas Sun]
- Tony Hsieh’s friend and financial manager sued his estate for nearly $7 million. [RJ]
- Prosecutors deny conflict in push for inmate’s execution. [RJ]
- Attorney Paul Ray happy with outcome in FTC payday loan case. [RJ]
- What else is happening out there today?
Re the conversations yesterday: I hear a lot of tolerance preaching from the left but none is shown to conservatives, etc. – I am LDS, I love my family, my wife seems to love not working, our kids seem happy, and I respect the traditional family. Likewise today I am not on the blog telling gay people how to live, judging those stricter than me (perhaps Muslims) or more liberal than me. Why is it that liberals are tolerant of everyone except their conservative brethren? We're not half bad so give us a chance please.
Why is intolerance of bigotry and hatred painted as something only someone on the left does against the right? Nobody hates someone for loving their family, but a lot of people hate racism and sexism. I bet on both sides. But you have to draw an artificial line in the sand and claim liberals hate and conservatives love to demonize the left for not tolerating hate.
@10:24 who is being intolerant of that lifestyle? Who is oppressing you?
10:24–I understand and appreciate your point that many people pre-judge the LDS church, or misunderstand their values, or unduly judge and criticize them, etc.
I further understand your point that many on the left are intolerant of institutions, such as the LDS Church and many others, that extol traditional family values, etc.
But where you lose me is when you indicate that you and yours are not guilty of the same thing. You are. Clearly. And as flawed human beings we are all subject to unintended inconsistency, and at times even unintended hypocrisy, when it comes to debates over values, etc.
For example, when you insist, when defending yourself and your church, that no one should criticize you or your church's values as you and your church are not telling others how to live, such as you are "not telling gay people how to live" you could not be more blatantly, unequivocally wrong.
There was a massive PR and policy campaign from your church, and admittedly many other denominations as well, strenuously opposing gay marriage, and strongly supporting the ballot questions a few years back to eliminate the possibility of Nevada allowing gay marriages by having our Nevada constitution specifically amended to define marriage between only a man and a woman.
So with all those hours sent on lobbying on this issue, and all the money and effort spent to take the huge step of a constitutional amendment designed for the sole purpose of blocking gay marriage, please don't feed us that self-righteous malarkey about "we are not telling gay people how to live."
And, BTW, I am not arguing on behalf of gay marriage(which, is no longer even a debate as it has been long-since resolved)and I am not singling out your church as many denominations took the same position.
But just be honest. Now if you were to say those amendment ballot questions were like 15 years ago and that you and your church now feel differently, I guess that could be aa point you could offer.
But I don't believe the church's position has significantly changed. I simply believe that your church, and most other denominations, recognize that the matter has long since been resolved and there is nothing that can effectively be done to reverse it.
You should have left it at you are not telling others how to live. But since you chose to make it more specific by selecting a specific group of people that you are supposedly not telling how to live, you could not have picked a worst example than gay people, as your church, and many others, made great efforts to assure that gays were to live their lives without ever having the benefit of marriage.
11:29–I think 10:24 sounds sincere when they say that they do not suggest to other people how they should live.
But I do concede that when they claim that they, and by extension their church, do not tell gay people how to live, that was unwise to get specific and name a particular group of people, and even more unwise to select gay people as that specific group of people.
Because, yes,suggesting that LDS people have never told gays how to live is ludicrous in light of the church strongly supporting those Nevada constitutional amendments, which were solely for the purpose of preventing gays from marrying.
Former LDS here. Nothing but love for members of the church who are by and large good people trying to do good things.
The problem is that even though you're not on the blog telling gay people how to live, everyone knows that's what your church teaches. If your wife wants to stay home because that's what she wants to do, great! If she wants to stay home because old white guys want the world to stay in 1950's white america, then that's more of an issue.
Just consider it the inverse of "love the sinner, hate the sin".
Love the mormons, hate the church.
Ex mormon here too – I wonder how many of us there are in the legal field?
Given the large number of mormon lawyers in Las Vegas, I'd guess there's dozens of us! Dozens!
Current LDS here. In fact, I'm so Mormon, my roots/generations in the Church go back deeper than Kevin Price's. I agree with most of 10:30's sentiments. In fact, most Mormons do. There is a great book out by Jana Reiss, "The Next Mormons" that has a treasure trove of sociological data about different generations of Mormons. One of the takeaways is that Gen X and Millenial Mormons tend to have much more progressive views about gender roles and LGBT issues.
I don't care for religious rhetoric that divides people whether that is aggressive intolerance or feigned victimhood (let's be honest, if you're a Mormon in Vegas you're not oppressed or discriminated against. Be Real. If anything, being Mormon in Vegas is a huge up professionally and socially).
I count Mormons, ex-Mormons, Jews, Gentiles, Atheists, Catholics and Evangelicals among my friends. We are lucky to have all in abundance here. I've lived in several different regions of the country, and Vegas has by far the most live and let live attitude towards religion. I love it. America should follow our example. There's no need to attack each other. We live in a city and a country where we all get to follow our conscience, and I hope we can all agree that's pretty fetchin' great.
Well put.
If you are old, white, and mormon, it is a plus. If you are young, white, and male, firms are more interested in diversity and will in fact discriminate against you all things being equal–or even if you have somewhat more merit than your competition. How can you not take race into account, when stating that you want to hire a "diverse" staff? I've yet to figure out how these firms bury their decision making process to avoid Title 7.
Maybe businesses value diversity and include that in their calculations. Why is that in any way wrong? They can decide what brings value to their comapnies besides a sense of entitlement.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that protects employees against discrimination based on certain specified characteristics: race, color, national origin, sex, and religion. Under Title VII, an employer may not discriminate with regard to any term, condition, or privilege of employment.
So when you say you want to hire "diverse" people, you are saying you are going take race into account for a hiring decision, necessarily implying some discrimination against those races that are not diverse. It's illegal to discriminate.
Current Mormon partner in my law firm is sexist. The way he is treating this one fenale attorney is atrocious. I feel awful, but the client is the one pushing this sexist agenda. Feel bad.
Can you be more specific about what he is doing? She should file a charge of discrimination with the state or with the EEOC.
Unless the female attorney brings in a lot of business for the firm, the instant she files a sexual discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuit against the firm, she becomes a hot potato that other firms will recoil from when she applies for a job there. I won't hire anyone who has previously sued their employer – for whatever reason. As crappy as my attitude sounds (and is) about this and other types of harassment & discrimination lawsuits, there are enough FBUs out there that hiring one who is tainted by suing a former employer is a risk I'm not willing to take. Was the suit meritorious? Was it made up and extortionate? I'd rather not have to look into it. However – of course, if the attorney has a book of business to bring with her (or him) a lot of things can get overlooked.
Money solves these problems.
No, this involves opposing counsel he is doing this to.
Does "FBU" stand for Fungible Billable Unit? I'm guessing it does . . . .
To say that the partner's religion is the reason that he is sexist, overreaches.
He may be sexist because of LDS influence or more likely because of family influence or maybe he is just a jerk. And, no, I am not LDS.
Yes, it is awful to say he is Mormon. He identifies himself as that
I don't understand what the issue is. Mormons like traditional family roles. The man is the head of household. They get married at 19, and the women have 6 kids. They also hate gays and liberated women. So we are bigoted for describing their ideologies? I am in
Mormon dude here. I got married at 20, not 19, and we didn't have 6 kids. I don't hate gays. My wife is educated and would happily kick my ass if I described myself as the head of the household. Marriage is a partnership, not a damn corporate board with a single CEO, and it's sure as hell not a sole proprietorship with a domestic employee.
Both temple recommend holders and lifelong members, so don't throw that "you must not understand your own beliefs" BS at me. And yes, that sentence is addressed to fellow Mormons and non-Mormons alike.
Correction – married at 21 after coming home from my mission.
Point being that the ideology isn't the source of the sexism or asshattery.
8:10 AM added some nuance here that I think is underappreciated. Family influence is probably the greatest influence on how we see gender roles. I am very Mormon (won't take the sacrament with my left hand), and part of the reason that our marriage works is because both sets of our parents were very egalitarian, all four had/have careers. My spouses family is slightly matriarchal and my family is slightly patriarchal. It would be nice to think that we are egalitarian in our marriage because we are so flippin' awesome, but it's mostly just what was encoded in us by watching our parents.
I am left handed and take the sacrament with my left hand, but I also think we should go back to the time when the word of wisdom was a recommendation and not part of the recommend interview.
Paul Ray link here
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/las-vegas-attorney-happy-with-outcome-in-ftc-payday-loan-case-2340565/
Good job Paul. This is the only nice thing that you will ever hear me say about you.
Wow, Hamilton just announced he's leaving Boyd. You haters must be thrilled.
Dean Dean is leaving? Does that mean all of the Harry Reid rejects, I mean pet projects leaving too?
Just proves us right. He wanted to monkey withour admissions standards to goose those stupid US News rankings to burnish his resume. He has never had any long-term investment in our legal community. Good riddance.
Hamilton @5:40
Concur!
Boyd – Change the name.
We changed the airport name because McCarren had some not PC acts in the 50's.
If you speak to long time casino folks who worked for Sam Boyd, they will tell you stories about Boyd that are definitely not PC. He was a product of the culture and time, just as was McCarren. Time to change the law school name?
Well the law school is named after Bill Boyd. So interested why you believe Sam Boyd's nature would serve as a basis for changing its name?
4/28/2021 -Where is Dean Hamilton going? Another law school or someplace else in the University? Anyone know. Retiring?
https://law.unlv.edu/news/publications/boyd-briefs/thank-you-dean-dan
"…and achieved one of the biggest jumps in national rankings of law schools over the past five years."
There it is.
Why is it assumed that opposing the concept of gay marriage is somehow being anti-gay? As a Libertarian, I want the govt out of the marriage business altogether. I oppose govt's promotion of, recognition of, licensing of, passing laws pertaining to, marriage by straights, gays, pluralities, whatever. Marriage should be a religious issue, not a govt issue.
So I opposed govt's recognition of gay marriage. I don't care who you sleep with, live with, have sex with, have children with — any consenting adult(s) [or even animals — so long as you own the animal(s) in question]. Just take the govt out of the issue. Find a preacher of whatever spiritual persuasion you like and get him to "bless" your relationship.
Decades ago, I helped pioneer documents between same sex people who wanted to appoint each other their health care managers, co-owners/managers of property, wills and trusts to create as-if community property arrangements between them, etc. Powers of attorney that would survive comas and incapacity and family resistance. But even so, I never wanted the govt involved in marriage — gay or otherwise. Yes, I know that the tax codes give advantages to some married couples. But my wife and I both work and earn comparable incomes, so we are in the "marriage penalty" window, penalized for being married. (We file Married filing joint because of the penalty.) The tax code should be marriage-neutral.
Now, pull out the tar and feathers.
Sure an argument could be made that the IRC should be marriage neutral; however it is not. An argument could be made that any number of state and federal laws should be marriage neutral. Except they are not. So when you say "I opposed govt's recognition of gay marriage", please tell us the steps that you have taken to deny government recognition of marriage of heterosexual couples. If you have not, then yes– you treat gay couples different than heterosexual couples. So long as there are rights granted, you either want everyone to have equal rights or you are fine with different people having different rights.
Agree with 6:32. Marriage comes with a whole bundle of rights. Unless you've taken affirmative steps to untangle that from our inheritance, tax, HIPAA, adoption, child custody, paternity, property, insurance, privacy, and all the other laws/codes that grant special status to married folks, then you're just engaged in some low-grade, libertarian intellectual masturbation that does nothing to protect equal rights for ALL.
6:06–Opposing gay marriage is obviously anti-gay and discriminatory no matter how you wish to spin it. Depriving others of rights that you and others enjoy, solely based on a moralistic, condemning value judgement you are making concerning their sexual gender preference and life style, is obviously, by definition, discriminatory and anti-gay.
Claiming you don't care about how gay people behave, and that thy can do what they want, but take the government out of it and thus deny them the right to marry,, is circular, anti-logical, convoluted and contradictory.
If we are to take the government out of it, should that not mean that such marriages should be permitted and that the government must not interfere to prevent and preclude such unions?
How is it that you say you don't care what they do, it does not offend you, an that you are not discriminatory, if you then proceed to indicate that you as a straight person should have the full legal/financial/social benefits of a legitimate marriage, but that a gay person should accept the few morsels that you would condescend to allow them–such as the possibility of health decision involvement, possible estate rights, but that they should not be entitled to a legal marriage but only to some possible quasi-religious ceremony(if they are of a religion that would perform such a ceremony) "blessing' the union.
How can you claim that you fought for the rights of same gender people as to health care and estate issues, yet be so insensitive and tone-deaf to insist that they are not entitled to a legal marriage, and, worse yet, refuse to admit that such is discriminatory?
I happen to be straight and relatively conservative, but I am quite offended that you, as an attorney, seek to justify, and fail to see the constitutional underpinnings involved, in your blatant attempts at discriminating and denying people the same rights you have, simply because their life style offends you–while all the time insisting their life style is of no concern to you.
Agree with 9:08 in that it is odd for an attorney, which 6:06 professes to be, to behave that way.
Rather than simply saying he opposes gay marriage on moral ground(and many still feel that way even though the issue is long since resolved) he indicates he has nothing against gay people but eliminate the government from the equation.
So, if he sees nothing wrong in their behavior, and he does not want the government interfering in their lives, then should that not logically mean that they should have the same rights of marriage of 6:06?
Apparently not. But 6:06 justifies this blatant discrimination through thee use of distraction–move away from the discussion of marriage and discuss certain property rights or inheritance rights that gay couples may be able to arrange.
I don't want 6:06 fighting for anyone–at least not any issues that have constitutional overtones as 6:06 does not understand the constitution, nor the concept of discrimination via state action.
6:06 may very well be a fine lawyer in certain areas–but it is clear none of these areas requires utilizing constitutional arguments(equal protection, etc.), or an understanding of governmental discrimination, etc.
"libertarian intellectual masturbation" 8:08AM Can we be friends? Best comment on the blog ever. Had me cracking up.
How can you say you are anti gay marriage, then say you're anti marriage in general, give some neocon screed as to why government's role in licensing marriage is nonsense, and then mention your wife? Everybody on this thread is dumber for having listened to you. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.
Here's the bottle. I work for the NRA law firm, Garman Turner. I keep my 600k house in my mame only when my wife put me through law school. Proud Liberatarian Mormon.
Ben Nadig–Not everyone on the thread listened to him/her.
9:08 and 9:16 certainly did not.
April 28, 2021 at 6:06 PM – I've tried to stay out of this as long as I could stand it. But as Popeye would say…
As long as we're discussing religion and how it impacts our view of the role of the state, I am someone who has been a Unitarian since I was 7 years old. Libertarian ideology was something I saw and heard a lot of growing up. And it was good and it provides some fundamental underpinning to my principles as a Unitarian to this very day. But we see it as rationale to protect people as individuals from state oppression, not as a tool to exclude.
April 28, 2021 at 6:32 PM raises the most obvious point. Stating you oppose gay marriage because you oppose all marriage falls flat if you're not out there publicly calling for all marriage to be abolished.
But libertarian thought except the most extreme sort supports the state providing a forum to adjudicate disputes in a civil manner under the rule of law. And here is where the best argument in favor of having established uniform laws on marriage is to be found.
Marriage as a standardized legal institution is a good idea for the same reason as having uniform laws on contracts, torts, etc.: so that every civil case doesn't become a case of reinventing the wheel. Abolish marriage and there will still be divorce, it just won't be called that. We see this now with lawsuits over property and custody between unmarried persons. Your own discussion of "pioneer" documents speaks directly to this.
So I would respectfully suggest that your libertarian argument is either left suspect as to your real intentions or else fails where libertarian theory fails most frequently, which is in the mantra that the state can do nothing better than the private sector, which just doesn't hold up in this case.
I can never be temple recommended when I am a gay woman. Pete Angula, big Mormon, told me I would never be a good lawyer if I have children. Hi, Pete. Where are you?
That too.
For anyone of the old timers who remember Ken McKenna who was an attorney here in town, interesting story with a connection to Ken.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/he-did-terrible-bad-things-brother-says-after-notorious-inmates-death-2341036/
11:16 AM-Ken McKenna–remember the name but what was his practice here in Las Vegs?