Civil Rights News - Law and Daily Life

Law & Daily Life - The FindLaw Life, Family and Workplace Law Blog

Recently in Civil Rights Category

Despite what president-elect Trump now thinks, burning and desecrating the United States flag is completely legal. On Tuesday, November 29, president elect Trump tweeted out that he believed people who burn the flag should lose their citizenship and face a year in prison. Could he ever make that happen?

Fortunately, the First Amendment protects flag burners, and the United States Supreme Court has confirmed the same. While there have been numerous attempts over the years to prohibit flag burning, none have been successful as the Supreme Court returns to the First Amendment protections and explains that burning the flag or desecrating the flag is an act of symbolic speech.

The First Amendment Defense Act is a bill before the United States Congress that would serve to protect individuals and businesses from federal action when they deny a person service if they are acting according to religious beliefs about marriage. While this may sound like an important protection to provide, as many critics have explained, the bill actually protects religious discrimination.

This is that notorious bill that would allow a bakeshop to deny a same-sex couple services based on religious beliefs. It could allow same-sex couples, whether married or not, to be denied not just cakes, but also the right to visit their partners in religious hospitals, or receive employer health benefits, all under the guise of religious freedom.

The freedom of speech is one of the most frequently cited constitutional rights online. Too frequently, it is cited to justify a person's right to say something that others find offensive or upsetting. However, while most understand that there actually are limits to free speech, just as many are shocked to learn the freedom of speech doesn't actually apply to any of the websites they are likely using.

For starters, the First Amendment only protects people from the government restricting their speech unreasonably. For instance, it does not protect people in real life, or on the internet, who incite violence; nor does it protect people making credible threats of violence.

Since websites are privately owned, websites are free to develop their own policies regarding what is or isn't allowed. You will generally have no legal recourse if a website chooses to censor you (although if it is done discriminatorily or in violation of a contract, you may).

Despite the fact that the choice of gender on official or legal documents is almost always limited to two choices, male or female, many people feel they don't fully belong on either end of the spectrum, but somewhere in the middle. One of those is Jaime Shupe, who was born with male genitalia but identifies as female, and feels more like "a third sex."

Fortunately for Jaime and others, courts and state and federal administrative offices are catching up with the evolving definitions of gender identity. In June, an Oregon judge granted a petition to change Jaime's gender from female to "non-binary."

From the right to free speech and the right to vote to the right to a fair trial, our civil liberties are protected under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And beyond the enumerated rights in those documents, courts have protected other civil liberties like the right to privacy.

We often think of civil rights and civil liberties as interchangeable, but there can be distinctions between the two groups. Here's a look at civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and how they differ from civil rights.

Last week, the Los Angeles City Council approved a measure that would effectively prohibit individuals from sleeping in their cars in any residential area, or near schools and parks. Although the measure was approved by the city council, it still needs to be signed into law by Mayor Eric Garcetti.

The new measure, if approved by Garcetti, would replace a prior ban that was put into place in the 1980s that was stuck down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals a couple years ago.

When we go to a hospital, it's normally for a medical emergency when we need competent care quickly. We expect to get the medical treatment we need, and we expect to be treated just like any other patient. Unfortunately, that's not always the case.

Some hospitals may deny certain treatments or procedures based on religious grounds, and others are struggling with providing adequate medical services to transgender patients. And some doctors are profiling their patients based on race and gender. Here's a look at how hospitals discriminate against patients and what you can do about it.

Last week, the Supreme Court announced that they will be taking up the case of Gavin Grimm, the high school student who has been told he can't use the boys' restroom because he is transgender. The case will be heard at some point next year, as the Court has only accepted to hear the case at this point.

When a case is appealed to the Supreme Court, one party to a case is asking the Court to review a Federal Appeals Court's decision. The Supreme Court is asked to review thousands of cases each year, and only selects about 80 to review. Although Gavin won the last appeal, the Supreme Court ordered that the appeals court's decision not go into effect until they decide to reject the case or after they decide the case.

It's no secret that Donald Trump thinks the upcoming presidential is "absolutely being rigged." When given the opportunity to clarify his stance, Trump said, "I would accept a clear election result, but I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result."

If the results are "questionable," what would such a legal challenge look like? And what grounds would you need to challenge an election's results?

A lot of accusations get tossed around come election time, and this year has been no exception. Some are old -- accusations of voter fraud have been thrown around for at least a decade and have spawned strict state voter ID statutes. Some are new -- few candidates, if any, have claimed outright that an election is rigged and refused to say they will accept the results of an election if they lose.

Both claims sound serious, striking at the heart of our democracy. But the negative effects of one of these charges have been disproven, while the consequences of the other may be right around the corner.