"Hamilton" Broadway Hottest Show where White Performers Need Not Apply

One critic said “Hamilton” takes a story that “valorizes dead white guys” and replaces it with black, Latino and multi-ethnic performers playing America’s founding fathers.

But as the blockbuster musical looks to expand to other cities, the casting notice with its call for “non-white” performers looks problematic to civil rights attorney Randolph McLaughlin.

“What if they put an ad out that said, ‘Whites only need apply?’” said McLaughlin, of the Newman Ferrara Law Firm. “Why, African-Americans, Latinos, Asians would be outraged.”

McLaughlin believes the ad violates the New York City Human Rights Law, which makes it unlawful “for an employer… because of the actual written or perceived… race of any person, to discriminate.”

“You cannot advertise showing that you have a preference for one racial group over another,” McLaughlin said. “As an artistic question – sure, he can cast whomever he wants to cast, but he has to give every actor eligible for the role an opportunity to try.”

Is It Always Discriminatory to Reject Religious Beliefs?

"Chicago Transgender Student Files Complaint for Access to Girls' Locker Room"

"Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has informed District 211, Illinois’ largest school district, that it is in violation of federal law by refusing to allow a male student who identifies as female to use the girl’s locker room."

The student, whose name has been kept private, first filed a complaint with support from the ACLU of Illinois in early 2014. Following precedent in two similar cases in California, District 211 was informed that depriving the student of equal access to facilities violates Title IX’s sex nondiscrimination protections, calling such treatment “inadequate and discriminatory.”... 

A statement issued by the district says that it supports transgender students, but that locker room access presents a unique set of challenges...

If the district cannot reach a compromise with federal officials, it risks losing some of the $6 million it receives in federal funding.

What a crying shame.

This is why small businesses go out of business in record numbers!

New York Post July 29, 2015

An Indian waiter in an Indian restaurant — imagine that!

City bureaucrats slapped a $5,000 fine on a Midtown Indian restaurant for trying to hire a server who is Indian, according to official documents.

Following an inquiry by The Post, the city’s Commission on Human Rights — which cited the eatery two years ago — said it’s assessing its practices.

Commission staffers have been trawling Craigslist to ensnare unwary restaurant owners who violate the law for things like seeking a “waitress” instead of a “wait-person.”

That’s gender discrimination by the city’s reckoning and could lead to a four-figure fine.

They hit the jackpot in October 2013, when Shalom Bombay on Lexington Avenue placed an ad for an “experienced Indian waiter or waitress.”

It might be common sense that an Indian restaurant would try to hire a server familiar with its cuisine, but to the city’s enforcers, it was a glaring red flag.

The law doesn’t allow ads that discriminate “based on national origin.”

The commission filed a complaint, eventually scheduling a trial for April 15 at the city’s administrative court.

There was a good reason the owners didn’t appear, according to former manager Raphael Gasner.

He told The Post the business closed in April 2014 — a year earlier.

Even without hearing both sides, a judge took pity on the owners and reduced the commission’s recommended $7,500 fine to $5,000.

“There was no complaint from the public, there was no evidence of how many people viewed the posting, and there was no direct evidence that any qualified applicant was turned away,” according to the documents.

“There was a discriminatory advertisement, but there was no additional proof that respondents refused to hire otherwise qualified applicants.”

A spokesperson for the commission described how new leaders are “assessing” its practices and looking into a change of tactics.

“The commission’s new leadership, as of February 2015, is currently assessing its investigatory strategy to implement more comprehensive and strategic investigations to pro-actively root out systemic discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations and expand the commission’s testing programs in these areas,” the spokesperson said.

So this is what it has come to. The regulators comb through the want ads to bring cases against businesses so they can fine them. Of course they go out of business before that can happen because with the taxes and regulations it is just no worth it. Another fool will come along and sink his life savings into this spot and they will try to control everything he does or fine him into oblivion. 

It's sick out there and it is getting sicker.

'No Diet Coke for you'

On her Facebook page, Ahmad claimed a flight attendant was “clearly discriminating against me” after she asked for an unopened of soda for hygiene reasons and says was told, “Well, I’m sorry. I just can’t give you an unopened can, so no Diet Coke for you.”  When the man next to her allegedly got an unopened beer can from the in-flight service, Ahmad said she was told something even more inflammatory: “We are unauthorized to give unopened cans to people, because they may use it as a WEAPON on the plane.”

"Religious conservatives are the targets of discrimination, lawyer says"

"Religious conservatives are the ones being discriminated against for their stance of conscience." said Jordan Lawrence a veteran attorney who in 2006 represented a female photographer in one of the cases widely cited in the “religious freedom" law.

“Nobody has a religion that says they have to deny service to gay people, the way the other side portrays this issue,” he said. “That completely distorts reality and makes this seem like a segregated lunch counter in the South.”

He added: “I’ve had a long time to ponder this and I can’t think of a single person who has said ‘My religion says I can’t sell goods and services to gay people.’ Nobody.”

What some are saying, he insisted, is that they cannot be a party to a ceremony in which marriage is defined differently than between one man and one woman—or serve as an advocate for such a marriage.

People such as website designers, videographers, social media specialists and advertising agencies that devise campaigns—if asked to advocate political or religious platforms— have a right under the law to decline

“They don’t have a standard product – it’s a message they have to formulate to put out there, but people want to ignore the fact that asking a [Christian] website designer to create a website that God does not exist could create some crisis of conscience.”

The threshold for denying services in a religious protection case, he said, is whether the task required by the religious person is “expressive.” Does the job involve some sort of creativity?

Here, Jordan Lawrence cites a couple of instances, one, which made it's way to the New Mexico Supreme court, where a concurrence accompanying the court’s opinion, one of the justices wrote that the Huguenins (a photographer) “now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” adding “it is the price of citizenship.”

The second instance, an example where this time a governor was singled out for her Christian belief, did not go to the courts, but it did make the news.

In 2012, Sante Fe, N.M., hair stylist Antonio Darden made news when he said he would no longer cut the hair of Gov. Susana Martinez—or offer her the secret hair coloring recipe he designed just for her—because he disagreed with her opposition to gay marriage. Although his stand did not involve a religious protection law, Lorence used the anecdote to make a point.

“The governor’s aides called not too long ago, wanting another appointment to come in,” Darden, who is gay, told a local television station at the time, "Because of her stances and her views on this, I told her aides no. They called the next day, asking if I’d changed my mind about taking the governor in and I said no.”

Lorence said the media rallied behind Darden.

“The stories said ‘Wow, what a principled guy. They treated him like a hero because the governor violated his beliefs,” Lorence said — and the fervor caught on.

“Waiters and waitresses in the area vowed not to provide service to the governor if she came in to eat because of her stance on same-sex marriage,” he said.

Lorence believes laws that protect religious convictions are in place for a reason, and should not be politicized.

“Because this hairdresser was on the right side of the political debate, he got a pass in the press,” he said. “It’s wrong to view religious liberty laws as a fortress of the conservatives, that if you wipe out laws protecting religious liberty you’ve somehow seized a strategic stronghold of the enemy and brought them closer to defeat.”

Reached at his shop, Dardon told the Los Angeles Times that he had every right to deny service.

How can the hairdresser not see that it is HE who is singling out people, indeed punishing the governor for her Christian beliefs?

Oops, sorry, #Mozilla. MT @benshapiro @megynkelly @mozilla's anti-religious discrimination! http://t.co/dzSeRPSOAP … pic.twitter.com/9gku2Frbwq
— Jeff Rainforth (@iResistAll) April 5, 2014

Volokh: "Choosing What to Photograph Is a Form of Speech"

"The past year has been good to advocates of marriage equality. The Supreme Court struck down the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that denied federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples. Six more states extended marriage rights to same-sex couples—Illinois will join them June 1, becoming the 17th state overall—and federal courts struck down same-sex marriage bans in four more states (now on appeal)."

We support the extension of marriage to same-sex couples. Yet too many who agree with us on that issue think little of subverting the liberties of those who oppose gay marriage. Increasingly, legislative and judicial actions sacrifice individual rights at the altar of antidiscrimination law. READ MORE (bold mine, for emphasis)

The article concluded...

The Supreme Court's ruling in Wooley guarantees the right of photographers, writers, actors, painters, actors, and singers to decide which commissions, roles or gigs they take, and which they reject. But the ruling does not necessarily apply to others who do not engage in constitutionally protected speech. The U.S. Supreme Court can rule in favor of Elane Photography on freedom-of-speech grounds without affecting how antidiscrimination law covers caterers, hotels, limousine drivers, and the like. That's a separate issue that mostly implicates state religious-freedom laws in the more than two-dozen states that have them.

The First Amendment secures an important right to which all speakers are entitled—whether religious or secular, liberal or conservative, pro- or anti-gay-marriage. A commitment to legal equality can't justify the restriction of that right.

Wall Street Journal