Treefrog52881 | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Member since Apr 19, 2014

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


Recent Comments

Re: “Judge Wendell Griffen again participates in death penalty vigil outside governor's mansion

So essentially youre arguing justices have no first amendment rights, even off duty, outside the court house? Youre claiming hes not acting based on law but considering that the next judge who took up the case issued the same ruling based on the same facts and was not protesting outside the court then it proves his ruling was sound and based on the law. Yes, within the confines of court he is constrained to rulings based on the law- but his first amendment rights outside the courtroom do not become invalid if hes not ruling outside the law- and theres no evidence (besides his personal view lining up with his ruling which is true for most judges and decisions) that his ruling was based solely on his convictions when the state has messed up and left themselves in legal peril with their decision to skirt the law and his ruling against them. Just as the attorney general has less interest in upholding the law (you know her JOB) then bending, twisting and even refusing to enforce it based on her personal views. Shes more in peril of impartiality and not fufilling the duties of her office as directed by the constitution and law then he is- yet shes faced zero reprimand. Why is that?

12 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by April Sowell on 04/18/2018 at 12:25 PM

Re: “Father and son turned away from "Muslim-free" Hot Springs gun range for being brown

Previous posters are right. Despite her claims that its a "private club" and therefore not subject to civil rights laws and legally allowed to discriminate, her business fails every test for being considered a "private club." Previous cases have set legal criteria for qualification as a "private club." 1. Does the business advertise to the public? Yes, it does. It even has a Facebook page, open to the public which is promotion and therefore in and of itself proof that in the eyes of the law it is a "public establishment." 2. Are the profits collected by an owner or only given to one person or a small group of people? Yes, they are. So another qualification that makes it a "public establishment." 3. Is membership decided by a group or board of members and not an individual? Nope. Fail. 4. Are refusals for membership based on reasonable criteria?She's the one who decides membership and has openly flouted she only discriminates against Muslims. Even if she wasn't failing to meet the criteria to be a "private club" I'm pretty sure no court would hold bigotry against a protected class as reasonable criteria for refusal of membership. Therefore, since failing to meet ANY of those criteria has been held by the court as classification as a public establishment not a private club, and she has failed to meet ANY of the criteria her place of business is, in fact, a public establishment and her own admittance of discrimination is a flagrant refusal to follow the law, both federal and state prohibiting discrimination of a protected class. She claims she has legal counsel whose told her she's within her rights and can't be sued, which means someone has duped her and hasn't bothered to explain her chances to win are actually slim to none based on previous court rulings. Cited Case law: United States v. Jordan, United States v. Northwest Louisiana Restaurant Club, United States v. Richberg, Wright v. Cork Club, Bell v. Kenwood Golf and Country Club, Inc., Nesmith v. YMCA, Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Ass'n.
I hope the ACLU finds defendants soon, her business needs to close quickly.

12 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by April Sowell on 01/15/2015 at 4:07 AM

Re: “The coming political fallout on gay marriage

@Fred Piotti- Pushing it on you you say? So, then please do detail for me about the threats from same sex marriage supporters that they will force you to marry another man if the ban is overturned. Overturning the ban isn't pushing anything on you. It means that people who are gay will have legal access to the same benefits and rights as their straight counterparts. It doesn't force you to support or fight for gay marriage. You can go right in blissful in your ignorance, beating your homophobic drum. The Loving vs. Virginia decision didn't shove interracial marriage on people. No one was held at gunpoint and forced to marry someone of a different race. Saying gay marriage will harm traditional marriage is like saying abolishing slavery harmed freedom for white people. It's stupid. You don't believe in something or don't like it? Great don't do it. Your rights end where someone else's begin, and as long as it isn't hurting anyone else and is done by two consenting people, it's none of your damned business what someone else does with their body. Btw, that's a pretty dandy run on sentence you composed. Maybe you should spend more time in an English class and less worrying about things that neither effect nor concern you.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by April Sowell on 04/19/2014 at 2:07 PM


© 2019 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation