[sitetest]

Dear TexasGreg,

Well, I could go on with you about this, and get into involved explanations about whether "southern" or "conservative" would buy you anything in terms of developing a rationale for a protected class, and whether a suit for religious discrimination can even be based on disparate impact. The way you're citing "evangelical" cites real definitonal problems, and if you can't accurately define your class, you're gonna have a tough time protecting it. There are a number of weaknesses to the general idea that could be explored.

But I won't.

It is minutiae that bores even me.

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe some lawyer might disagree with me, but I'm pretty comfortable that what may have been done to the Bush twins is not covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or other federal laws.

Steve_Seattle makes a good point that this might be covered under state or local law.

But I don't think there are any federal laws that apply.


sitetest

[TexasGreg]

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe some lawyer might disagree with me, but I'm pretty comfortable that what may have been done to the Bush twins is not covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or other federal laws.

:) You could have fooled me about not being a lawyer. I actually AGREE with you ... I've just been having some fun.

Oh, sure, I wouldn't mind seeing it tested ... I would be curious to see what the outcome would be. Is it a violation of the law to discriminate based upon State of origin, for instance? One could say that it's not because it doesn't assert such in the law -- but, it does say "national origin" and, according to the Dems, we're a different nation than they are (we're from "Jesusland.")

Oh, well ... enough fun for a Saturday.