Licensing Of Places Of Public Assembly: Fill & Download for Free

These are completely different things.A Place of Public AccomodationLet’s take the anti-gay baker’s case first. In 2012, Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop in Colorado, refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, based on his religious beliefs. Now, this is a “place of public accomodation”, anyone can walk in off the street and order a cake. Accordingly, it falls under the guidelines of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Other laws basically extend the Civil Rights Act to other protected classes, such as sexual orientation (22 states + DC and Puerto Rico) or even dressing weird (at least if you claim that as a case of “gender expression”… in California… where else?). And Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act was one of those laws that extended the Civil Rights Act to cover sexual orientation. In short, you could be refused service for being an asshole or something, but not for being gay.It may be different when you’re an artist for hire, like a painter, photographer, or musician. For one, discrimination would fairly impossible to prove anyway unless advertised, because after all, you’re one person, each job probably takes a whole day, maybe more, and your work schedule is your private business. When you hire a major musical act, there’s usually a very detailed contract from the artist, with all kinds of “contract riders” that require this or that… it’s always a negotiation, very different than a walk-in business.At least maybe. Because, of course, a photographer or painter may run a studio — a place of public accomodation — at which point, they would absolutely be covered under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, just like the baker. A musician, on the other hand, probably not.A Protected ClassNow, as mentioned, even the anti-discrimination laws only pertain to certain protected classes. At the Federal level, that’s race, etc. And, as mentioned, sexual orientation on many state levels. These laws generally govern discrimination against a person based on something they physically are.Your political choices are a very different thing. Some states have laws against employer retribution for employee political activity — you can campaign for a Democrat even if your boss is Republican without fear of reprisal. But that same cake guy can probably refuse to bake your a cake if you’re a Democrat… if he really wants to run his business that way. A few locales have laws against this (Seattle, D.C), but they’re pretty rare.A Famous ExampleThis issue got rather famous over the South African resort town of Sun City. That was a common destination for famous musicians from all over the world, despite South Africa’s apartheid system. In the early 1980s, the United Nations has called for a sports and cultural boycott of South Africa, but it hadn’t gained much traction. Legislation for some form of boycott was introduced in the USA as early as 1972 (amazingly, current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was one of three sponsors. It didn’t go anywhere until 1985, which it came up for a vote, but fell due to a Republican filibuster. A revised version passed both House and Senate in 1986, but was vetoed by Ronald Reagan. But I digress….The point here is that, in late 1985, Steven Van Zandt (guitarist for The E Street Band and later on, acting as Silvio Dante in “The Sopranos”) had the idea that musicians shouldn’t play the Sun City resort, and sought to call attention to that. He managed to assemble about 50 musicians from a wide range of styles on a song that called attention to this, kind of “Band-Aid” style. And it worked… musicians stopped playing Sun City. Average people became aware of the situation. Big businesses pulled out. And things changed. More here: Steven Van Zandt Tells The Story Of “Sun City” And Fighting Apartheid In South Africa.We’ve seen boycotts over repressive politics here, too. Like the anti-LGBT laws passed in Indiana and North Carolina. Musicians refuse to play, sports organizations refuse to play, businesses move to a different state, etc.Campaign Music Use, Cease, and DesistYou may have caught that a fairly long list of artists went after Trump for using their music on his campaign. And that’s a fairly interesting one, too. Politics tends to have some of its own special legal situations.So let’s say I wrote a song, recorded and published it, and released it in the usual way, with rights managed by a performer’s rights company like ASCAP or BMI. So let’s imagine some incredibly unlikely situation when something I wrote got a few million YouTube hits (rather than the usual hundreds) and people wanted to hear it in public. Normally, a stadium or a resturant or any other venue takes out a blanket license with ASCAP and BMI, and they then are covered for any of the music licensed through these organizations. A political campaign can also take out this sort of license, for coverage when they’re not at a venue with its own license.And that’s probably fine for playing background music before a rally or speech or whatever. But once you start playing music as a part of a political event, you get tangled up in other laws. Most states have “Right of Publicity” laws, which simply allow any famous person some control over the commercial and political use of their identities. When Trump played the Stone’s “Start Me Up” or R.E.M.’s “It’s the End of the World as We Know It” as his walk-out music, he was creating an unwanted connection between his campaign and those artists. Both of them (and many others) specifically asked the campaign to stop using their music. There’s also protection by the Lantham Act, which protects against the dilution/confusion of a trademark, such as “The Rolling Stones”. And there are also False Endorsement laws, which prohibit a campaign using music in such a way that might seem the artist is supporting that campaign. So in short, a proper campaign gets artist permission first, before using any music. Trump’s campaign, not so much, he was shut down dozens of time by various artists. Here’s an actual Loyola Law Review article on the subject: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1273&context=elrGood Career AdviceIn simple terms, this has been the most divisive election in modern history, and Trump will be the least approved-of President on his Inaguration Day in generations. It’s wrong to assume that every artist out there is a Democrat or even anti-Trump. But in performing for Trump, you would be taking a de-facto political stand. Here’s what Howard Bragman, a high profile public relations expert, had to say:In the past, one could say: “He’s the President.” But I’d tell a client who was asked that this one is different. In our politically charged world, performing for Trump is a political statement, and if one chooses to perform they should go in with their eyes wide open.

The fundamental legal protection of human rights in Europe is provided by the European Convention on Human Rights.The rights covered by the US first amendment are covered by similar articles in the Convention:Freedom of ReligionThis is protected by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human RightsEveryone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the PressThis is protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human RightsEveryone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.Freedom of AssemblyProtected by Article 11 of the European Convention on Human RightsEveryone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.Anyone in Europe who feels that their rights to freedom of religion, speech or assembly have been violated can take a case to the European Court of Human Rights.The judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. are binding and states are obliged to execute them.

Let's clear up something important first: Kim Davis could not, and cannot, be fired. Davis is the county clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, which is an elected position. Davis ran for the office in 2014 as a Democrat, won it and started her term on 5 January 2015. In the US, you cannot be fired from an elected position.There are legal procedures in place for the removal from office of elected officials. In the case of Kentucky county clerks, removal involves impeachment, which means a decision of the Kentucky General Assembly to remove a clerk from office. This is a lengthy and involved process.First off, someone must submit to the Kentucky House of Representatives a petition requesting the impeachment of a publicly-elected official. This is difficult to do in Kentucky for most of the year, because by law, the Kentucky General Assembly only meets from the first Monday in January to March 30 (in even years) or April 15 (in odd years). The governor can, at any time, call a special session of the General Assembly, but in this case, doing so would specifically be to impeach a highly controversial elected official, which might cost votes in the general election, which is scheduled to take place later this year. The current governor, Steve Beshear (D), can't run for another term in 2015, but he might be afraid of poisoning the well for another Democrat.In any event, once the petition is received, the Kentucky House of Representatives reviews it in committee to see if it has merit, After this, the committee draws up a report, which is subsequently voted on by the full House. If impeachment is the decided course of action, articles of impeachment specifying the exact misdemeanor with which the official is accused are drawn up. It is at this point that the official is considered impeached, and it is here that the issue is sent to the Kentucky Senate to determine whether removal is in order, a vote that is carried by the majority of voting senators.All of these votes are matters of public record, and this is an election year. Nobody in the Kentucky General Assembly wants to lose votes over this nightmare, so it's not as though they would meet but for Beshear stopping the works. However, the federal courts do not have to worry about re-elections, and so the issue can get punted over to them without anyone losing any votes at all.That's not exactly what happened here, admittedly. What did happen is that Davis started refusing to issue marriage licenses to anyone in the aftermath of Obergefell v. Hodges, the US Supreme Court decision that banned states from refusing to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Hoping for a speedy resolution, April Miller and her partner Karen Roberts simply sued to get the marriage license pipeline unclogged again. Had Davis actually complied with the court order that resulted from Miller v. Davis, this would have been pretty speedily resolved, as opposed to waiting several months for the next legislative session or trying to convince the governor to call a special legislative session for the purpose of removing one county clerk.So it was a reasonable and sensible course of action for Miller and Roberts to go to the court. The problem came in when Davis refused to comply with the court order. Refusing to comply with a court order puts one in contempt of court, and it's up to the judge who issued the court order to decide how to deal with someone in contempt. Now, the judge was widely expected to level fines; however, Judge Bunning instead took a look at the history of similar anti-gay discrimination lawsuits and such and noticed that those who discriminated often managed to raise the money to pay fines using the internet. Davis, now being a national icon for anti-gay people, would certainly have been able to carry this off and therefore would not have been forced into compliance with the court order. Bunning therefore ordered her jailed.Davis will sit in her jail cell until either she decides to comply with the court order,[1] until she decides to resign as county clerk, until her subordinates affirm that they will issue marriage licenses in accordance with the court order with or without her permission[2] or until next year's session of the Kentucky General Assembly, which probably will vote to remove her just to have done with it all.Lastly, let's talk about the issue of imprisoning someone for their beliefs. Davis was trying to use her governmental powers to impose her religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriages upon others. This is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, which has applied to state governments since the 1925 Supreme Court case Gitlow v. New York. Davis is allowed to do whatever she so chooses in her personal life, but in her professional responsibilities as an elected official, she is not allowed to impose religious beliefs. At no point following Obergefell v. Hodges was she obliged to remain in her position if she felt that condition onerous. If she felt uncomfortable rendering unto Casesar what was Caesar's, then she shouldn't have taken a job in Caesar's employ.[1] Unlikely, due not only to her religious convictions, but also to the advice of her attorneys, who clearly do not give a crap about her interests.[2] Which would let this wrap up in less than a week's time. It would require the approval of Judge Bunning. (EDIT: This is indeed what occurred on 8 September. So long as Davis does not interfere with her subordinates issuing licenses, she will remain out of jail.)