Slashdot Mirror

Say you're 14, and you have [no] computer.

I washed dishes for two summers to pay for my first PC.

Someone may not be able to follow you in that if his or her parents and principal aren't willing to sign his or her work permit, which the law requires of all workers under 18 at least in my home state. (Source: Indiana DOL: Child Labor FAQs) The excuse my own parents gave for denying me a work permit was "Your education is your job. You need to concentrate on that." The aforementioned FAQ document also mentions that "schools have total discretion to refuse or revoke a work permit based on poor academics or attendance," and I doubt that most high school students have a 4.0 (A) average and perfect attendance for the entire preceding school year.

In addition, someone may not be able to follow you in that if all restaurants within walking distance have a blanket policy not to offer jobs to minors under 16 because all available positions have at least one duty that federal and/or state labor laws prohibit for children under 16. (Source: Indiana DOL: Prohibited and Hazardous Occupations for Minors) For example, a fast food restaurant may give the duty you mentioned (washing trays) to someone who also has the duty of cooking, and the law requires those who cook to be 16.

Say you're 14, and you have [no] computer.

I washed dishes for two summers to pay for my first PC.

Someone may not be able to follow you in that if his or her parents and principal aren't willing to sign his or her work permit, which the law requires of all workers under 18 at least in my home state. (Source: Indiana DOL: Child Labor FAQs) The excuse my own parents gave for denying me a work permit was "Your education is your job. You need to concentrate on that." The aforementioned FAQ document also mentions that "schools have total discretion to refuse or revoke a work permit based on poor academics or attendance," and I doubt that most high school students have a 4.0 (A) average and perfect attendance for the entire preceding school year.

In addition, someone may not be able to follow you in that if all restaurants within walking distance have a blanket policy not to offer jobs to minors under 16 because all available positions have at least one duty that federal and/or state labor laws prohibit for children under 16. (Source: Indiana DOL: Prohibited and Hazardous Occupations for Minors) For example, a fast food restaurant may give the duty you mentioned (washing trays) to someone who also has the duty of cooking, and the law requires those who cook to be 16.

I used Indiana's website ( https://indianavoters.in.gov/ ) to look up polling locations for Governor Holcomb (whose birthday and county were easy to find) and he's only given one option for a polling place (St. Thomas Aquinas Church). It's not like he's in some podunk small town in Indiana. How many options are you given?

From Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles:

Indiana law requires persons with a learner’s permit to complete at least 50 hours of supervised driving practice with a licensed instructor or:

A licensed driver, with valid driving privileges, who is at least 25 years of age and [if the individual is under 18] related by blood, marriage, or legal status

This can become a lot more difficult (read: expensive) if your parents don't drive, if your parents don't live in the same state, or if you are a member of a set of twins, triplets, or more (NSW, Australia):

Each of her 16-year-old quintuplets needs 120 hours behind the wheel to qualify for P-plates

in my state a utility bill is enough. If Voter Id laws already existed we wouldn't be talking about passing them. Voter Id laws mean a state issued Id. It's been shown repeatably that State Issued Ids are intentionally difficult to get and maintain for poor people. Again, spend some time on google and you can confirm this. You don't have to take my word for it.

Perhaps you should take your own advice and research from the link I provided you.

IC 3-5-2-40.5 requires a photo ID issued by state or federal government. This law was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008.

IC 3-5-2-40.5 "Proof of identification"
          Sec. 40.5. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), "proof of identification" refers to a document that satisfies all the following:
(1) The document shows the name of the individual to whom the document was issued, and the name conforms to the name in the individual's voter registration record.
(2) The document shows a photograph of the individual to whom the document was issued.
(3) The document includes an expiration date, and the document:
(A) is not expired; or
(B) expired after the date of the most recent general election.
(4) The document was issued by the United States or the state of Indiana.
          (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(3), a document issued by the United States Department of Defense, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (or its predecessor, the Veterans Administration), a branch of the uniformed services, the Merchant Marine, or the Indiana National Guard that:
(1) otherwise complies with the requirements of subsection (a); and
(2) has no expiration date or states that the document has an indefinite expiration date;
is sufficient proof of identification for purposes of this title.

Wisconsin also requires state or federal issued photo ID with the sole potential exception of a college issued photo ID but that also has to be combined with proof of enrollment in said college.

Virginia also requires photo ID along the same lines as Wisconsin where the only exception to it being government issued is for college IDs.

I don't really feel like digging into any of the other 34 states that require identification and how many of those require government issued IDs. Three, and one of which went to and survived the Supreme Court, is more than sufficient to disprove your assertion that voter ID laws always get rejected in court.

http://iga.in.gov/static-docum...

Indiana Code 9-21-17 are laws governing pedestrians. Pedestrians only have right of way over vehicles in Indiana if they are crossing at a marked cross-walk where the crosswalk is flashing the walk signal. They are to yield the right of way under all other conditions with the sole exception of blind pedestrians that are carrying a stick or have a marked sight dog. Pedestrians committing these violations can be fined up to $500.

IC 9-21-17-5
  Walking or running into the path of a vehicle; prohibition
  Sec. 5. A pedestrian may not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.

IC 9-21-17-7
  Crossing roadway at point not marked as a crosswalk; yield of right-of-way to traffic
  Sec. 7. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

IC 9-21-17-9
  Marked crosswalks; adjacent intersections; duty to obey
  Sec. 9. Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians may not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.

In case this isn't an attempt to Gish gallop, I'll do my best to refute each:

Bag groceries

Despite cashiering and bagging groceries being permitted occupations, this is impractical for two reasons. As I understand it, retail grocery stores are reluctant to hire someone only to bag for an entire shift. Someone hired in part to bag is expected to fulfill duties elsewhere in the store when there is less demand for bagging staff. As I mentioned earlier, business insurers don't want 14 and 15 year olds handling cash, and retrieving goods from the warehouse is illegal. From Indiana Department of Labor: Child Labor FAQs:

Warehousing and storage is strictly prohibited for a 14 or 15 year old.

For this reason, in order to increase flexibility of the duties that each employee may perform during his or her shift, many employers set a blanket policy of not hiring anyone under 16.

mow lawns

Illegal. From Indiana Department of Labor: Child Labor FAQs:

Q: Are 14 and 15 year olds allowed to use a lawn mower or weed cutter?
A: No. Minors 14 and 15 years old are prohibited from operating most power-driven machinery, including lawn mowers, tractors or weed cutters, in conjunction with any business.

babysit

How does a child under 16 normally go about learning to babysit and finding babies to sit? Besides, what if the babysitter needs to reach something on a high shelf? He or she can't use a ladder. From Indiana Department of Labor: Child Labor FAQs:

Any duties that require the use of a ladder, scaffold or a substitute for such equipment is prohibited for 14 and 15 year olds.

stuff envelopes for business advertising

Google stuffing envelopes business turns up articles warning that this line of business is a scam. See warning on Single Moms Income and warning on FTC.

data entry

That tends to get outsourced offshore nowadays. Instead of being done in Indiana, it gets scanned here and sent to India.

little league ref

Requires an interest in baseball and local demand.

In case this isn't an attempt to Gish gallop, I'll do my best to refute each:

Bag groceries

Despite cashiering and bagging groceries being permitted occupations, this is impractical for two reasons. As I understand it, retail grocery stores are reluctant to hire someone only to bag for an entire shift. Someone hired in part to bag is expected to fulfill duties elsewhere in the store when there is less demand for bagging staff. As I mentioned earlier, business insurers don't want 14 and 15 year olds handling cash, and retrieving goods from the warehouse is illegal. From Indiana Department of Labor: Child Labor FAQs:

Warehousing and storage is strictly prohibited for a 14 or 15 year old.

For this reason, in order to increase flexibility of the duties that each employee may perform during his or her shift, many employers set a blanket policy of not hiring anyone under 16.

mow lawns

Illegal. From Indiana Department of Labor: Child Labor FAQs:

Q: Are 14 and 15 year olds allowed to use a lawn mower or weed cutter?
A: No. Minors 14 and 15 years old are prohibited from operating most power-driven machinery, including lawn mowers, tractors or weed cutters, in conjunction with any business.

babysit

How does a child under 16 normally go about learning to babysit and finding babies to sit? Besides, what if the babysitter needs to reach something on a high shelf? He or she can't use a ladder. From Indiana Department of Labor: Child Labor FAQs:

Any duties that require the use of a ladder, scaffold or a substitute for such equipment is prohibited for 14 and 15 year olds.

stuff envelopes for business advertising

Google stuffing envelopes business turns up articles warning that this line of business is a scam. See warning on Single Moms Income and warning on FTC.

data entry

That tends to get outsourced offshore nowadays. Instead of being done in Indiana, it gets scanned here and sent to India.

little league ref

Requires an interest in baseball and local demand.

In case this isn't an attempt to Gish gallop, I'll do my best to refute each:

Bag groceries

Despite cashiering and bagging groceries being permitted occupations, this is impractical for two reasons. As I understand it, retail grocery stores are reluctant to hire someone only to bag for an entire shift. Someone hired in part to bag is expected to fulfill duties elsewhere in the store when there is less demand for bagging staff. As I mentioned earlier, business insurers don't want 14 and 15 year olds handling cash, and retrieving goods from the warehouse is illegal. From Indiana Department of Labor: Child Labor FAQs:

Warehousing and storage is strictly prohibited for a 14 or 15 year old.

For this reason, in order to increase flexibility of the duties that each employee may perform during his or her shift, many employers set a blanket policy of not hiring anyone under 16.

mow lawns

Illegal. From Indiana Department of Labor: Child Labor FAQs:

Q: Are 14 and 15 year olds allowed to use a lawn mower or weed cutter?
A: No. Minors 14 and 15 years old are prohibited from operating most power-driven machinery, including lawn mowers, tractors or weed cutters, in conjunction with any business.

babysit

How does a child under 16 normally go about learning to babysit and finding babies to sit? Besides, what if the babysitter needs to reach something on a high shelf? He or she can't use a ladder. From Indiana Department of Labor: Child Labor FAQs:

Any duties that require the use of a ladder, scaffold or a substitute for such equipment is prohibited for 14 and 15 year olds.

stuff envelopes for business advertising

Google stuffing envelopes business turns up articles warning that this line of business is a scam. See warning on Single Moms Income and warning on FTC.

data entry

That tends to get outsourced offshore nowadays. Instead of being done in Indiana, it gets scanned here and sent to India.

little league ref

Requires an interest in baseball and local demand.

In case this isn't an attempt to Gish gallop, I'll do my best to refute each:

Bag groceries

Despite cashiering and bagging groceries being permitted occupations, this is impractical for two reasons. As I understand it, retail grocery stores are reluctant to hire someone only to bag for an entire shift. Someone hired in part to bag is expected to fulfill duties elsewhere in the store when there is less demand for bagging staff. As I mentioned earlier, business insurers don't want 14 and 15 year olds handling cash, and retrieving goods from the warehouse is illegal. From Indiana Department of Labor: Child Labor FAQs:

Warehousing and storage is strictly prohibited for a 14 or 15 year old.

For this reason, in order to increase flexibility of the duties that each employee may perform during his or her shift, many employers set a blanket policy of not hiring anyone under 16.

mow lawns

Illegal. From Indiana Department of Labor: Child Labor FAQs:

Q: Are 14 and 15 year olds allowed to use a lawn mower or weed cutter?
A: No. Minors 14 and 15 years old are prohibited from operating most power-driven machinery, including lawn mowers, tractors or weed cutters, in conjunction with any business.

babysit

How does a child under 16 normally go about learning to babysit and finding babies to sit? Besides, what if the babysitter needs to reach something on a high shelf? He or she can't use a ladder. From Indiana Department of Labor: Child Labor FAQs:

Any duties that require the use of a ladder, scaffold or a substitute for such equipment is prohibited for 14 and 15 year olds.

stuff envelopes for business advertising

Google stuffing envelopes business turns up articles warning that this line of business is a scam. See warning on Single Moms Income and warning on FTC.

data entry

That tends to get outsourced offshore nowadays. Instead of being done in Indiana, it gets scanned here and sent to India.

little league ref

Requires an interest in baseball and local demand.

the school's principal needs to issue a work permit for any employee under 18, and as I understand the law of my state, he can refuse to for any reason.

Indiana is another:

Q: How does a minor obtain a work permit?
A: Nearly all minors ages 14 through 17 who wish to work in Indiana are required to obtain a work permit. Work permits are obtained from the accredited high school in the school district where the minor resides. To obtain a work permit, a minor must first be hired by an employer. The employer must provide the accredited school with written notice that they intend to hire the minor, as well as the hours the minor will work and the types of duties the minor will perform. [...] If the minor does not attend the accredited high school or is homeschooled, the minor may be required to provide a letter from his/her school stating that the minor is in good academic and attendance standing.

[...]

Q: My high school principal refuses to issue a work permit for me. What can I do?
A: Work Permits are issued through accredited schools in Indiana. These schools have total discretion to refuse or revoke a work permit based on poor academics or attendance. If your school refuses your work permit for these reasons, there is no other office or agency that may issue the work permit. If you feel this rule is being applied unfairly, we would recommend speaking with the school principal or contacting the superintendent or the school board for the school district. If the high school is refusing to issue the work permit for any other reason besides academics or attendance, please contact the Bureau of Child Labor by phone at (317) 232-2655 or by e-mail at childlabor@dol.in.gov .

In theory, this gives the principal the power to require an A+ GPA and zero absences, excused or unexcused, since 9th grade.

I froze my credit with all 3 agencies without paying anyone. I think there's an Indiana requirement.

Really? That's interesting!

Not to reply to my own post; but...

GP is right! If you live in Indiana, Freezing/Thawing your Credit is FREE by law!

http://www.in.gov/attorneygene...

This would be an incorrect statement and you're basing it on a bill Pence signed into law. http://www.in.gov/legislative/...

This bill reclassified various criminal offenses, including "providing false information to a clerk of the circuit court" from a Class D to Level 6 felony. It didn't create any new crimes or make the crime in question any harsher.

The "crime" of applying for marriage licenses came about from the fact that the online method of applying for marriage licenses did not permit you to select male-male or female-female as a combination as the website was created in accordance with the Indiana law that made marriage between people of the same gender illegal. Thus you had to select one spouse as male and one as female. No one has ever been jailed or even prosecuted for doing such a thing so that claim falls short as well. This crime is not specific to homosexual couples as it is with regard to giving the court false information. A couple that submitted the male spouse as female and the female spouse as male would also be equally guilty of the crime. Perhaps the more damning point against your claim that "A bigot who once made it a criminal offense for gays to apply for marriage licenses" is that homosexual couples could still apply for marriage licenses without breaking the law in question by using the paper form and crossing out the male or female section and writing in the appropriate gender.

But hey, whatever, thanks for perpetuating a falsehood to push your own narrative and belief.

Perhaps someone at EIB thinks not everybody receiving Mr. Limbaugh's show thinks the convenience is worth $219 per year for the first receiver and $146 per year for each additional receiver.

That's $15 per month for the first receiver and $10 per month for each additional receiver, plus 13.9% music royalty cost recovery fee, plus state sales tax on the order of 7% that varies from one jurisdiction to another.

Some bathroom bills are constructed such that one is considered male if either having XY chromosomes or assigned male at birth, or female if XX or assigned female. Thus if chromosomes don't match assignment at birth, one is both male and female. It goes on to ban females from men's rooms and vice versa. By a literal interpretation of the bill, people who have both sexes are banned from both bathrooms. Source: Indiana House Bill 1079

The law in case requires treatment of what is nothing but medical waste as if it were a dead body.

Throughout the law in case, legislators explicitly removed ANY limitation of gestation time or any choice from the pregnant women on the matter - making it a law that 1-week, 2-week or 20-week abortion MUST be treated the same as a body of a grown human being.
It MUST be issued a burial transit permit and it MUST be either buried in a graveyard (i.e. interred) or cremated - at the expense of the clinic or the parent(s).
It cannot be disposed of as what it is - medical waste. As was the case prior to that law.

Furthermore, law requires informing the parent(s) of the "fetus" about "counseling that may be available concerning the death of the miscarried fetus".
Which is treating a removed cyst as if it is a dead human. And if the human is dead due to a surgery, that means someone killed it.
I.e. Abortion is murder.

Also, parent(s) are required to sign off on the "final disposition of the miscarried fetus" - i.e. the burial.
Thus, the law DOES require families to hold funerals (as only licensed funeral facilities may conduct burials of human bodies) - if they chose not to have the burial of the "fetus" taken care of by the clinic.
In which case, the clinic must bare the costs of the procedure - IF they can even find someone willing to do the "interment or cremation".
Cause while on one side there is an active campaign against anything abortion related in that state, on the other there is no money in it for the funeral homes.
For either of those reasons, they tend to refuse to provide burial services to clinics.

"We're all figuring it out," said Patti Stauffer, the vice president of policy at Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky. So far, she hasn't had much luck finding potential funeral homes and cemeteries - a lot of the businesses she's called have told her no. "It's not like we have hundreds of people that are interested in working with us," she said.

That doesn't mean implementing the law won't be logistically challenging, though. "There's going to be a lot of man hours involved," said Curtis Rostad, the executive director of the Indiana Funeral Directors Association. "I think a lot of funeral homes are going to be doing a lot of man hours to do this, for not a lot of income."

Which in practice leaves clinics with a single solution - to shift the burden of the burial of the "fetus" onto the patient.
"Fetus" must be treated as a dead body...
Clinics can't find a business partner to do it for them...
But a patient can simply walk into a funeral home with their burial transit permit and their bag of medical waste and have the "fetus" interred or cremated. Yay!

I.e. Either the parent(s) must take the "body" to a funeral home and have it buried at their own expense - OR the clinics will be forced to have parents take the body to a funeral home and have it buried at their own expense.
Or clinics can simply close. That's an option too.
Just like coat hangers and falling off a stool are an option.

The winning technique used by the plaintiff was thus:

1. Send a letter to the target asking him to admit fault and owing a certain amount of money ($30K, $600K, whatever).
2. Wait for him to not respond in 30 days
3. Voila, by Indiana law, this not-responding is equivalent to the admission being sought.
4. Profit, obviously.

The judge, who awarded him $30K (plus interest), acknowledged the amount is "seemingly high" and the judgment "may seem extreme for the breach of contract for the purchase of a printer." But he wrote that he's constrained by how the Supreme Court had previously interpreted a state trial rule, called Rule 36, which sets the 30-day deadline for responding to requests for admissions.

The appeal court noted:

"He did not send requests claiming $30,000 and $300,000 and $600,000 in damages because he believes those figures are legally justified and thought Costello might agree," Vaidik wrote. "He sent them because he hoped Costello would not respond, rendering the matters admitted..."

Yes, he did, you dimwits. You sat on that rule for years and saw nothing wrong with it. You saw nothing wrong with it applied by your fellow pedigreed lawyers acting just as predatory — if only a little less obviously — against others. Suddenly, a man comes around filing his own lawsuits, representing himself in court — and you find yourself bound by your own arcane rules.

"Oh, but we did not mean for it be used that way." Well, you should not have written it that way then...

Whether the sold printer was broken, whether the seller really did try to sell a lemon — that's small potatoes. What pan Zavodnik exposed was the incompetence of Indiana's judges. Hurrah for the hacker!

same as the "you have not replied to my post therefore i Pwn you" school of comment flames.

In the imaginary made-up world of USAToday journalism. This was a civil lawsuit, which doesn't even have a concept of "guilt" and "innocence".

Uh, Bill, could you please point to the statement in the USA Today article which uses the word "guilt" or "innocence"?? (Hint: those words never appear.)

I have don't know what actually happened, but it certainly wasn't what TFA described. My best guess is that he failed to respond to interrogatories.

Well, uh, that's precisely what TFA says -- the plaintiff supposedly sent the defendant statements asking him to admit liability, and the defendant never responded. Whether there was no response because the defendant never received them (as he claimed) or because he was just tired of this BS after the case had already been dismissed multiple times, the defendant never admitted liability.

Nevertheless, there was some BS law in Indiana that was interpreted as an admission of liability (not of "guilt" -- and USA Today doesn't use that term a single time).

Oh, and Bill, if you think USA Today is inaccurate, they give a link to the final court decision in the article (which you can find here), which basically summarizes the case pretty similarly to the article.

If you want to bitch about TFA, at least RTFA. If you want to bitch about GP's misuse of terminology, then realize that's GP's fault.

The court can't change the rule, only the legislature can

I thought so too, but it seems, this rule is not a law, but a procedural rule actually set by the State's Supreme Court. The document is titled: "Indiana Rules of Court. Rules of Trial Procedure". Either way, whether it is the law-makers or the law-interpreters (judges), who are responsible, the problem is with the legal system, which leaves no leeway for the judges.

debt collection industry, which is the group that makes most use of it.

I'd be interested in seeing your evidence of debt-collectors' contributions to politicians.

But, even if your accusation is true, the simple defense against the technique is to, instead of ignoring the letter, respond to it with a "No". Why didn't the target do that, I do not know. Maybe, being from Massachusetts, he thought he can pretend to not have received anything until somebody cornered him with the infamous "You are served!"

The winning technique used by the plaintiff was thus:

1. Send a letter to the target asking him to admit fault and owing a certain amount of money ($30K, $600K, whatever).
2. Wait for him to not respond in 30 days
3. Voila, by Indiana law, this not-responding is equivalent to the admission being sought.
4. Profit, obviously.

The judge, who awarded him $30K (plus interest), acknowledged the amount is "seemingly high" and the judgment "may seem extreme for the breach of contract for the purchase of a printer." But he wrote that he's constrained by how the Supreme Court had previously interpreted a state trial rule, called Rule 36, which sets the 30-day deadline for responding to requests for admissions.

The appeal court noted:

"He did not send requests claiming $30,000 and $300,000 and $600,000 in damages because he believes those figures are legally justified and thought Costello might agree," Vaidik wrote. "He sent them because he hoped Costello would not respond, rendering the matters admitted..."

Yes, he did, you dimwits. You sat on that rule for years and saw nothing wrong with it. You saw nothing wrong with it applied by your fellow pedigreed lawyers acting just as predatory — if only a little less obviously — against others. Suddenly, a man comes around filing his own lawsuits, representing himself in court — and you find yourself bound by your own arcane rules.

"Oh, but we did not mean for it be used that way." Well, you should not have written it that way then...

Whether the sold printer was broken, whether the seller really did try to sell a lemon — that's small potatoes. What pan Zavodnik exposed was the incompetence of Indiana's judges. Hurrah for the hacker!

I've chosen rather to discuss with my son what to expect

You talk to your 10 year old about goat sex? Pedophiles? Worse?

It's a difficult conversation, but there are many helpful books and brochures.

London Trust Media is an Indiana corporation with mailing addresses in Los Angeles, CA and Grandville, MI.

Gun license has no such requirement, since it is opposed by the NRA.

http://www.in.gov/isp/images/N...

Child labour laws don't prevent children from working and earning money, it just limits what they can do and how much they can work.

And until 16, that's pretty close to zero, even during summer vacation in jurisdictions that have one. I'll summarize the situation in Indiana:

• Under 12: Only on parents' farm.
• 12 or 13: Only "as a newspaper carrier, golf caddy, domestic service worker (work performed at a private residence), entertainer (with certain restrictions) or farm laborer," and only with permission of the child's parent. If all these jobs are taken, a child under 14 is out of luck.
• 14 to 15: A few occupations become available, but only with a work permit approved by the child's parent and the school's principal (or the school district in case of home-schooled students), and only duties not on a long list of duties prohibited prior to 16. Most employers just put a blanket ban on employees under 16 because of the wide variety of prohibited duties. For example, employees under 16 aren't even allowed to fix machines that break, use a ladder to reach things, or put anything into or take anything out of a truck.
• 16 to 17, prior to graduation or GED: Occupations that are not hazardous become available, but only with a work permit approved by the child's parent and the school's principal (or the school district in case of home-schooled students).

So unless the parent teaches the child how to seek out those few jobs available to a child under 16, the child is out of luck. In fact, my parents actively discouraged me from such. Nor are children allowed to drive a car to and from work.

Also, don't you give your children an allowance?

A lot of parents restrict what their children can buy with an allowance. From a legal standpoint, they don't give the child an allowance as much as allocate an allowance to a trust benefiting the child. Besides, children don't own real estate in which to store a modern console. "My house, my rules."

The scenario with a bag of bagels isn't one of the ones causing an issue, so as an example it doesn't apply. That type of transaction is fine - that the buyer is gay or whatever is irrelevant, it has no bearing on the transaction, it has no reason to come up. It'd be quite a stretch to say that by selling them some bagels you are endorsing them in any way.

Indiana's senate bill 101 does not make it clear that it does not apply in this case (I'll grant you it does not make much clear at all though). Do you have a reliable source that explains why this case is not relevant?

"For example, a Statute of Limitations is an Affirmative Defense."

Bullshit. A statute of limitations is just that ... it is a LIMIT, not an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is a JUSTIFICATION OR EXCUSE.

Bzzt! WRONG!

From the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, Rule 8(C):

"(C) Affirmative defenses. A responsive pleading shall set forth affirmatively and carry the burden of proving: accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, waiver, lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency of process or service of process, the same action pending in another state court of this state, and any other matter constituting an avoidance, matter of abatement, or affirmative defense. A party required to affirmatively plead any matters, including matters formerly required to be pleaded affirmatively by reply, shall have the burden of proving such matters. The burden of proof imposed by this or any other provision of these rules is subject to the rules of evidence or any statute fixing a different rule. If the pleading mistakenly designates a defense as a counterclaim or a counterclaim as a defense, the court shall treat the pleading as if there had been a proper designation." [Ind.Trial.Rule 8(C), emphasis added].

Here's another definition of "Affirmative Defense, specifically referencing "Statute of Limitations".

"Affirmative Defense" is a "Term of Art", idiot. Learn what those words mean (all of them).

Really, it would be funny if it weren't so sad. All of the SJWs are condemning the Indiana law, because they disapprove of the motivation behind it. However, it is nearly identical to the federal law that the SJWs applauded. The only differences are theoretical motivations behind the laws. The federal law was justified, in part, on the freedom of Native Americans to practice their religion. The Indiana law is justified, in part, on the right of businesses to refuse service when doing so would violate their religious beliefs.

The actual or hypothetical motivations behind the laws are, in the end, completely irrelevant. In practice, the law can be invoked by anyone who feels that their religious freedom is being curtailed. What's important is the content, so let's look at the laws:

The federal law, enthusiastically supported by SJWs, states: “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.”

The Indiana law, vehemently condemned by SJWs, states: “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.”

There is no significant difference between the two. What the SJWs are objecting to are the purported motivations of the people passing the law. In short: "it's good if we do it, but bad if you do it". Pretty much textbook hypocrisy.

p.s. For those wondering why the States need their own laws, when a federal law exists: Some court case or other led to a decision that the federal law was not binding on State and local governments. This is mentioned in the Wikipedia article about the federal law.

You can read it here: SB 101

Maybe reading the actual bill would help you untwist your panties: SB 101

It doesn't say what you think it says.

OMFG...have you even READ the legislation? IT IS AN ALMOST WORD FOR WORD COPY OF THE FEDERAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT WHICH THE SCOTUS JUST RECENTLY UPHELD IN A CHALLENGE TO THE ACA!!!!!!

From the SB 101's Digest: "Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest." (Emphasis mine.) See: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101

This thing won't come within a country mile of the SCOTUS.

It can be done through the state code as well.

In Indiana, for example, all individuals that are of at least 18 years are age that live in the state are considered part of the militia. That group is then divided into the sedentary militia and the national guard.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/...

So you actually believe nobody who is under 18 works?

No, I do not believe that. I just happen not to have seen anybody under 18 with a job in my own family.

Have you ever been to a supermarket or fast food restaurant?

Yes, I have. But I don't know how the situation that I see came about. First, I don't know how they convinced school officials to grant a work permit. In my state, the principal of the high school that a minor child attends has power to deny the student a work permit for any reason, so long as the student has at least one absence or at least one grade lower than A. Second, city buses don't run 24/7 (source: fwcitilink.com). How should the student get to and from work across town if the employer gives him or her hours on Saturday evening or on Sunday? Or are employers of high school students willing in general to accommodate the city bus schedule? Third, it appears that very, very few jobs are open to 15-year-old high school students (source).

or - when asked about a gift - suggest a desktop PC instead.

That means four months between the start of the school year and gift-giving season during which time the student lacks the means to complete his homework at home.

Why would you do a trade-in?

It was the first result when I searched for iPad resale value.

Just under what legal theory before the FDA was poisoning people a legitimate business ?

THE RADIUM WATER IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Back in the U.S. robber-baron era (1870-1905) it used to be the case that it was your own fault if you put it in your mouth. It didn't matter if the seller marketed it as edible despite knowing or suspecting that the product was poisonous (such as radium water or formaldehyde-preserved milk). As the buyer you were supposed to know better, as summarized by the legal doctrine caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware"). It was only later that caveat emptor was _partially_ overturned by the invention of the "implied warranty", as federally formalized in the Uniform Commercial Code of 1952 (though the concept was kicking around decades earlier than that on a state-by-state basis). In the absence of a warranty (explicit or otherwise), the seller had made no promise to the buyer about the product sold, and with no promise to break there was therefore no fraud on the seller's part. No fraud, therefore no wrong and no restitution: no wrongful death damages, no medical bill expenses, not even a "satisfaction or your money back" refund guarantee.

To this day, there's still quite a bit of caveat emptor in the law. For example, cigarette smoke is poisonous at the intended dosage, full stop. Habitual smoking of cigarettes is known to inactivate hemoglobin by way of carbon monoxide, to reduce lung capacity by accumulation of scar tissue, to damage the cardiovascular system by hardening the arterial walls, and to dramatically increase the risk of lung and other cancers. But despite their documented toxicity, to this day tobacco companies are not held liable for selling them. They have been sued several times, but generally for their advertising, and many of the advertising suits have been for ads that played up false benefits or downplayed real drawbacks -- i.e. they made a promise (implied warranty of fitness) that was then broken (fraud). But so long as the buyer is duly warned (no false advertising, the Surgeon General's Warning is present), the situation reverts to caveat emptor and it's again the buyer's own fault if they put poison in their mouth.

Wow.. Nothing can be easy enough for you it would seem.

Easily, but how quickly? Quickly enough to catch the second semester?

Who knows, your work performance and the relationship you enjoy with your employer will determine that. I do know people who work full time in the summer and live at home and make enough money to pay their tuition. Some of them went to school part time and stretched their degrees out an extra 2 years in order to make it happen without going into debt.

Like a bus, a bicycle or carpool isn't so convenient for someone whose parents happen to live 50 miles (80 km) away from college.

Then maybe you should sit on the couch and wait for the unicorn to walk by and crap $100 bills. Car pool or ride a bike to the bus. Do anything you can. check out community colleges and get the majority of your courses out of the way before being forced into the trek. If it is something the person wants to do, it might be difficult, but I'm confident that they could find a way to make it happen.

The state of Indiana requires 50 hours of supervised driving practice on a valid learner's permit, at least 10 of those hours at night, before issuing a driver's license. How much does 50 hours of a driving instructor's time cost?

It costs nothing but expenses of the car. The state of Indiana requires supervised driving by either and instructor, another licensed driver over 25 or a licensed spouse 21 and older. You do not need to hire a driving instructor for 50 hours. You do not even need to take a drivers education course (although I would recommend one)

http://www.in.gov/bmv/2672.htm

I thought ETFs were likely to lose a substantial portion of their principal in a recession.

Not likely ETFs are day traded so sudden drops in value is mitigated. Quite a few of them remained over 5% in the 2008 crash. I suppose you can not do your homework and pick one of the more poorly run ETFs. People do this all the time else they wouldn't be available still. Then again, other people have different needs and perhaps a slight loss or not as much gain is something they prefer at the moment.

I love that certain services, like Gmail and broadcast television, are paid for by advertising instead of by me. And targeted advertising is nothing new. If you tuned in to a soap opera in 1965, you were far more likely to see an ad for cookware than for a pickup truck.

Since I have chosen to accept advertising in my life, by using ad-supported services, I prefer to see targeted ads. They're far better than the alternative: random ads that have no relevance for me and are a poor match to my interests, location, and culture. Best of all, because targeted ads are more effective, it takes fewer of them to fund the service that I'm using.

If an advertised product does not meet my needs, or is not an exceptionally good value, my spine and willpower are strong enough to resist the advertiser's appeal. TFA asserts that "profit-seeking corporations are gaining an insurmountable edge in their efforts to get people to part with their money." Hardly. I am just as tightfisted with my dough as I ever was, and it's inconceivable that will change. I laugh in the face of their so-called "insurmountable edge." By contrast, the author of TFA wrote, "There may be nothing particularly embarrassing or personal about my vulnerabilities as a consumer, but I do not especially want to share them with companies so that I can be manipulated for their financial gain." It's profoundly sad that her confidence in her own ability to be a discriminating consumer is so paper-thin.

If some people lack the fortitude to resist advertising, they are the true sheeple. I support efforts to teach them critical thinking skills and provide consumer education. Beyond that, keep your hands off my freedom to use advertiser-supported services.

2) If you're going to claim higher crime rates are related to lead poisoning, (...) There is no association here, this is a strawman argument.

This here says otherwise. But hey, you're a random NRA fan on /. , so you probably know better than the scientists cited in my link. After all, they're all payed by the... umm... bismuth lobby.

At least for your states Supreme Court you can lookup their written decisions. Sometimes Wikipedia has a listing of individual judges and their decisions for your state. Pick an issue you know when to the state court and lookup the decision. Each state should have these decisions online in some form. Try searching for keywords like Abortion, Marijuana, Alcohol (Wine shipments to your state and microbrew issues). In Indiana we are trying to vote out "Steven H. David" for his decision stating "We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers." http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

That's how it works in Indiana. The law allows the use of force on the police for in many circumstances including removing them from your property when trespassing with force. It permits force (including deadly force if warranted by the circumstances) to be used on law officers where a individual has reasonable grounds to believe the officer is acting unlawfully. See http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2012&request=getBill&docno=1

A person: (1) is justified in using deadly force; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

That's right. Lethal force is allowed in Indiana for third parties who aren't directly involved in a situation. Followed by:

(d) A person: (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle. (e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully

source

I checked for Indiana, and I don't see any indication that Indiana is among "most states". I don't remember seeing any mention of a malfunction the last time I read the Indiana traffic law, and I reread chapter 3 (traffic signals) today. Nor does chapter 4 of the Indiana driver's manual mention malfunctions. Google malfunctioning traffic signal indiana or stuck red light indiana didn't give me anything else relevant. I called the city four times and the Indiana Department of Transportation twice, and on the second call to INDOT, the person on the other end said whenever that happens, I should back up, get into the right turn lane, make a right turn on red onto the primary street, a U-turn, and another right turn, because it's a known issue that some sensors where I live cannot be fixed. Is that maneuver supposed to be considered reasonable?

I checked for Indiana, and I don't see any indication that Indiana is among "most states". I don't remember seeing any mention of a malfunction the last time I read the Indiana traffic law, and I reread chapter 3 (traffic signals) today. Nor does chapter 4 of the Indiana driver's manual mention malfunctions. Google malfunctioning traffic signal indiana or stuck red light indiana didn't give me anything else relevant. I called the city four times and the Indiana Department of Transportation twice, and on the second call to INDOT, the person on the other end said whenever that happens, I should back up, get into the right turn lane, make a right turn on red onto the primary street, a U-turn, and another right turn, because it's a known issue that some sensors where I live cannot be fixed. Is that maneuver supposed to be considered reasonable?

I checked for Indiana, and I don't see any indication that Indiana is among "most states". I don't remember seeing any mention of a malfunction the last time I read the Indiana traffic law, and I reread chapter 3 (traffic signals) today. Nor does chapter 4 of the Indiana driver's manual mention malfunctions. Google malfunctioning traffic signal indiana or stuck red light indiana didn't give me anything else relevant. I called the city four times and the Indiana Department of Transportation twice, and on the second call to INDOT, the person on the other end said whenever that happens, I should back up, get into the right turn lane, make a right turn on red onto the primary street, a U-turn, and another right turn, because it's a known issue that some sensors where I live cannot be fixed. Is that maneuver supposed to be considered reasonable?

I can go to a local bar and drop $10 on beer.

So what are parents and their children supposed to do? "It is a Class C infraction for a parent, guardian, trustee, or other person having custody of a child under eighteen (18) years of age to take that child into a tavern, bar, or other public place where alcoholic beverages are sold, bartered, exchanged, given away, provided, or furnished." (IC 7.1-5-7-9)

"It is a Class C misdemeanor for a person to knowingly carry liquor into a restaurant or place of public entertainment for the purpose of consuming it, displaying it, or selling, furnishing, or giving it away to another person on the premises, or for the purpose of having it served to himself or another person, then and there." (IC 7.1-5-8-6)

I have not investigated UK driver licensure. But a requirement of 100 to 120 supervised hours is common in some states in Australia, I've read. As for the United States, Indiana's page about driver's licenses states: "To apply for a driver’s license, you must visit a license branch and present documents of identification and provide a signed Log of Supervised Driving." And on this page, "Indiana requires persons with a learner’s permit to complete at least 50 hours of supervised driving practice with a licensed instructor or with a licensed driver who is at least 25 years old". There is nothing to imply that adult learners are exempt from this requirement. Furthermore, this "log must be signed by a parent or legal guardian." There is nothing to imply that adult learners are exempt from this requirement either, allowing a parent to deny the privilege of driving to his or her adult children.

I have not investigated UK driver licensure. But a requirement of 100 to 120 supervised hours is common in some states in Australia, I've read. As for the United States, Indiana's page about driver's licenses states: "To apply for a driver’s license, you must visit a license branch and present documents of identification and provide a signed Log of Supervised Driving." And on this page, "Indiana requires persons with a learner’s permit to complete at least 50 hours of supervised driving practice with a licensed instructor or with a licensed driver who is at least 25 years old". There is nothing to imply that adult learners are exempt from this requirement. Furthermore, this "log must be signed by a parent or legal guardian." There is nothing to imply that adult learners are exempt from this requirement either, allowing a parent to deny the privilege of driving to his or her adult children.

I live in Indiana and property taxes only recently went down after a massive spike a few years back because of outrage. I was one of those outraged, having also lost an exemption. Also, I just sold my house in a short sale at 60% of the original value, but was taxed at 100%.

Sales Tax History of Indiana

Oct. 24, 1963* 2%
May 1, 1973 4%
Jan. 1, 1983 5%
Dec. 1, 2002 thru March 31, 2008 6%
April 1, 2008 thru present 7%

http://www.in.gov/dor/4159.htm

Yeah, we got a 1% cap, and 2% rental and 3% business property tax rate, but we got it at the cost of ever increasing sales taxes. It's just stealing from Peter to pay Paul, and makes it even harder on poorer Hoosiers.

Simon Properties don't give a damn about residents here. They think they will somehow save their GAP and Sunglass Hut malls with this stunt, rolling back the clock to the 80's. Hoosiers are fiscal conservatives. We damn well remember who raises our taxes, and Simon is on that list.

The reasons for the "fake" signatures vary: sometimes people just write bogus names while exiting a supermarket, sometimes they write their real name, but happen not to be registered voters (and so the signature doesn't count), and so on.

From http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2395.htm ... PDF document titled "INDIANA PETITION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY BALLOT PLACEMENT" at http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/CAN-8__(2012A_revision).pdf

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF INDIANA OR THE INDIANA ELECTION DIVISION:

Each of the undersigned represents that: 1) the individual resides at the address after the individual's signature; 2) the individual is a duly qualified registered voter in Indiana and 3) the individual desires to be able to vote for the candidate listed below; and each of the undersigned respectfully requests you to plae the following name of the legally qualified candidate for President of the United States on the May 8, 2012 Primary Election Ballot as a candidate of the (check only one box please) [ ] Democratic Party or [ ] Republican Party.

Near the bottom of the form

County Voter Registration Office Certification

I certify that, in accordance with IC 3-8-2-9, I have reviewed the registration records of the petitioners and certify the above number to be registered voters of this County.

So you see, it is already understood that some people might fill out false information, which is why county officials swear and sign that they have validated each signature against voter registration records, and this is the source of the fraud.

The reasons for the "fake" signatures vary: sometimes people just write bogus names while exiting a supermarket, sometimes they write their real name, but happen not to be registered voters (and so the signature doesn't count), and so on.

From http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2395.htm ... PDF document titled "INDIANA PETITION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY BALLOT PLACEMENT" at http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/CAN-8__(2012A_revision).pdf

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF INDIANA OR THE INDIANA ELECTION DIVISION:

Each of the undersigned represents that: 1) the individual resides at the address after the individual's signature; 2) the individual is a duly qualified registered voter in Indiana and 3) the individual desires to be able to vote for the candidate listed below; and each of the undersigned respectfully requests you to plae the following name of the legally qualified candidate for President of the United States on the May 8, 2012 Primary Election Ballot as a candidate of the (check only one box please) [ ] Democratic Party or [ ] Republican Party.

Near the bottom of the form

County Voter Registration Office Certification

I certify that, in accordance with IC 3-8-2-9, I have reviewed the registration records of the petitioners and certify the above number to be registered voters of this County.

So you see, it is already understood that some people might fill out false information, which is why county officials swear and sign that they have validated each signature against voter registration records, and this is the source of the fraud.

Indiana's constitution

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/const/art1.html

Section 20. In all civil cases, the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.