“The bill, which is based on guidance from the Obama administration, requires an â??affirmative consent standardâ?? that school administrators would use to determine whether a sexual assault has occurred. The standard would define every sexual encounter as an â??an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decisionâ?? by everyone involved.”
This is clearly not enough. Jerry Brown will require a document in triplicate (and in Spanish, Mandarin, Tagalog, VIetnamese) to be notarized by a special sensitivity-trained notary.
“The bill, which is based on guidance from the Obama administration, requires an â??affirmative consent standardâ?? that school administrators would use to determine whether a sexual assault has occurred. The standard would define every sexual encounter as an â??an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decisionâ?? by everyone involved.”
This is clearly not enough. Jerry Brown will require a document in triplicate (and in Spanish, Mandarin, Tagalog, VIetnamese) to be notarized by a special sensitivity-trained notary.
[/quote]
A signature by the consenting parties and by two witnesses should be enough, imo.
Cliff Richard is a “lifelong bachelor.” In his autobiography, Richard stressed that “sex is not one of the things that drives me.” Although he has never married, Richard has rarely lived alone. For many years he shared his main home with his charity and promotion schedules manager, Bill Latham…
Richard often declines discussion about close relationships and when asked about suggestions that he may be homosexual has stated categorically that he is not…
Richard has spoken of his friendship with John McElynn, an American former missionary…Richard said “John and I have over time struck up a close friendship. He has also become a companion, which is great because I don’t like living alone, even now.”
Richard “called on the Church of England to affirm people’s commitment in same-sex marriage.”
Those two articles are completely insane, as is law today. Since we, persons(formerly people), are considered chattel, the same as corporations, government property, etc. there is great latitude for law administrators(formerly judges) to make obviously senseless law decisions to benefit opening up room to criminalize more persons and create more culpability for the previously completely innocent.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
THE most irrational court ruling I can ever remember:
[/quote]
On possible outcome of this however is the end of “gunfree” zones, as not a single business owner is going to foot the bill for these lawsuits and/or private security & insurance to cover this.
I disagree. The theater elected to disarm its patrons by putting up a sign that denied licensed concealed handgun owners their 2nd amendment right to bear arms.
As a result of disarming its patrons, the theatre now had the burden to protect them, most likely by providing armed security of its own.
I hope the theatre is sued out of existence, so as to make an example of it and other businesses that make such bad choices.
I disagree. The theater elected to disarm its patrons by putting up a sign that denied licensed concealed handgun owners their 2nd amendment right to bear arms.
As a result of disarming its patrons, the theatre now had the burden to protect them, most likely by providing armed security of its own.
I hope the theatre is sued out of existence, so as to make an example of it and other businesses that make such bad choices.[/quote]
I’m not a lawyer and all that, but this was my first impression as well. These families may have just ended the notion of “gun free zone” and inadvertently extended the 2nd righs of the nation.
However, and it varies by state I think, but in MA signage is NOT binding. Outside fo schools and government buildings you can ignore “gun free zone” signs. But if you print and are called out they can ask you to leave and if you don’t are considered trespassing.
Not really hard to explain: typical liberal statists at work.
The Constitution is merely an impediment to them to be worked around.
You clearly don’t realize how much liberals hate you, feel superior to you, and want to control you. Read the fat liberal guy’s posts on this very thread (can’t remember his name, but there is a picture of him squatting). His posts are just insults and hatred and smug superiority. It’s what liberals think.
They want to remove the Constitution because they want more latitude to control you.
With that in mind, the ruling makes sense.
It’s just outcome-based jurisprudence, which is most higher court rulings these days.