I just don't even follow the rationale behind this one

http://www.wkrn.com/story/21523867/c...p-police-power

Here's a good one from Idaho. Essentially Universities will not be able to discipline organizations if they discriminate on their leadership based on religion.

http://legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2013/S1078.htm

In Oklahoma, we're working on some sweeping worker's comp reform, throwing the whole system out and starting from scratch. One of my favorite finds so far is that there will be severe penalties for workers committing fraud, but no penalties for insurers or employers if they commit fraud.

I don't necessarily believe it's discrimination if say, The Islamic Student Center members are put off by some well meaning fundamentalist Protestant wanting to join their group.

Or if one of my fellow Catholics insists on joining the Baptist Student Union. Shouldn't that be up to the groups themselves to decide?

If you wish to attend a meeting or a function because you have had thoughts of adopting that faith, that's one thing. But a University causing a problem for a group of students of the same faith because they all want to essentially hang out together is not a good thing. I recall this really being a huge issue at Vanderbilt a few years ago. Perhaps a member of the Idaho legislature thinks it's wrong too.

Let us know how it comes out.

Well, clearly, only workers would ever do something wrong. :rolleyes:

Sorry for the double post, but this is a really big issue at Vanderbilt right now. That was in the article that I linked to earlier. There is state legislation proposed that is going to deny universities in the state from having their own police forces if they don't rescind their nondiscrimination policies. I just don't get the correlation. The apparent concern is what you mentioned among groups of faith and non-adherents of X religion gaining leadership positions in those groups. (i.e., a Christian becomes president of Islamic student group).

I just don't get it.

Doesn't it make you wonder about a group if an organization that worries about this then ELECTS one who doesn't reflect their choice?

EXACTLY! It doesn't make sense. I also think that a group that is worried about this is going to stick their necks out to make one who is not of their faith to feel super welcome, much less elect them to any office.

We briefly represented a large comp insurance company after it allegedly told a doctor that if he didn't revise his report, they'd pull all of his business. We represented them right up until the Court determined nothing criminal had happened there...so it happens.

Oddly many schools have gone from having their own police forces to having a precinct of the city police force on campus as a way to reduce administrative costs and eliminate some problems of jurisdiction. It also makes it harder for domestic violence cases to be swept under the rug. It is percieved as a way to limit opportunities for corruption.

Which is fine for schools that make that choice, but not relevant to the legislation proposed, which will actually cost taxpayers more in the end. Vanderbilt isn't exactly hurting for funds.

Our state House just voted to make UN Agenda 21 illegal.

Gotta make sure those UN thugs don't take over Oklahoma. ;)

Personally I think UN Agenda 21 is unnecessary and borderline sketchy with some of the eminent domain issues but AFAIK it's never been formally adopted by the Federal government because it's not an official treaty.

So that being said, couldn't any state or local municipality just say, "fack it, we aint gonna do it"?

Pretty much. Our state wants to prevent municipalities from implementing it.

In other words, we actively don't want a cleaner environment, more walkable city, etc.