Enjoy the weekend.
There was a warning on the paper wrapped around the flowers saying lilies can harm humans as well as stain clothes, but no “feline specific” warning.
(Or any other pet warning for that matter.)
The lily was “unreasonably dangerous,” according to the complaint, filed last week in Multnomah County Circuit Court.
[Cat owner Charley] Gee argues that the responsibility lies entirely on the retailer and wholesaler to disclose the risk –not on cat owners to know it themselves.
“When you have a consequence as high as that, it’s up to the retailer or a manufacturer — who are making money off this product — to warn of these potential high consequences of buying the product,” he said.
His animal-law attorney, Dane Johnson, cited floral industry papers alerting retailers to the risk lilies pose to cats.
In addition, Johnson noted that the companies did label the flower with the not-for-human-consumption warning and the staining alert.
We are glad to say that the cat in question has recovered and for that we are glad.
However, what pet owner brings home something that is not good for human consumption and doesn’t think “hey, that probably isn’t good for my pet?”
Long ago we decided that there were things about Japanese culture we could not understand – specifically some of the entertainment culture.
We really don’t get anime or manga as forms of animation. (And don’t get us started on henti.) We have seen clips of Japanese games shows that have left us bewildered.
However, we do have to say that we enjoyed greatly the over the top cooking show “Iron Chef” (the original – not the US version).
With that being said, take a look at clips from a video game called “Japan World Cup 3.”
The game allows players to bet on the outcome of “horse” races, but the horses are…….ummmmmmm……… a little off beat.
It is so comically bad that it is good.
(The video is NSFW-ish.)
Kinda leaves you speechless, doesn’t it?
A few days ago we wrote a post concerning the New Mexico State Supreme Court decision in the case of Elane Photography LLC v. Vanessa Willock.
The case involved a photographer who declined to contract with a gay couple who were going to hold a “commitment ceremony” / wedding. The photographer declined the contract on the basis of religious objections. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled the photographer could not refuse the contract because the New Mexico Human Rights Amendment declared a business could not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (amongst other protected classes of people.)
We found two issues with the decision. First, we don’t believe the First Amendment compels speech or expression. Photography is an art form – a form of expression – and such expression should not be compelled by the government. Secondly, we thought that forcing some one to do something against their religious beliefs was wrong.
After the post went up, we kept doing research on the topic. (More on that later.)
As we were researching and reading, were received two comments from two people that are really good – so good in fact we wanted to highlight them in this post.
The first comment was made by local radio host, blogger and author Steve Bussey. While the whole comment should be read, Bussey says:
One person’s or group’s “rights” cannot take precedence over another’s and nobody in America has a “right” or the power to compel another to provide goods, services or time for any reason.
Bussey has said in the past (and if we are misrepresenting him, he will let us know) that he believes that God given / natural rights are absolute.
The second comment is in rebuttal of Bussey, and is written by local historian and author John Fergus.
Once again the total comment is worth reading. Fergus concludes with:
Closer to the lives we all lead, imagine repeatedly winning a sales contest or being selected “employee of the month” so many times you are told you cannot win it again.
Excellence in any endeavor makes everyone around us better. It sets a standard for which we can all strive. If you don’t like Alabama winning, go out and beat them. If you don’t like some employee winning a sales contest, go out and sell more than they do.
It’s that simple.
Which brings us to this story.
Tyler Weaver is a 12 year old fifth grader who for the last five years has participated in his local library’s “Dig Into Reading,” a summer reading program in Hudson Falls, New York.
The program rewards the child who reads the most books during the summer with a small prize.
For the last five years, that child has been Tyler Weaver, who has read a whopping 373 books over the course of the five years. This summer, Tyler read 63 books over the course of six weeks ranking first in the contest.
(Tyler’s brother came in second – reading 40 books which we think is great for a 7 year old.)
There was one person who was not happy with the results – Hudson Falls Public Library Director Marie Gandron.
In a much watched case, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a photographer could not refuse to photograph a committment / wedding ceremony between a gay couple due to the religious beliefs of the photographer.
The case is Elane Photography LLC v. Vanessa Willock .
Vanessa Willock contacted Elane Photography inquiring about pricing and services for her committment ceremony to another woman. The owner of Elane Photography, Elaine Huguenin, informed Willock that due to her religious convictions, she would not be interested in supplying photographic services for the wedding.
Willock filed a complaint in New Mexico claiming Elane Photography had violated New Mexico’s Human Rights Act (NMHRA) which states that it is illegal for….
any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap (emphasis ours
The New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled in favor of Willock. Huguenin appealed to a District Court and after losing there, appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court.
While this may seem like a slam dunk case against Huguenin, surprisingly the case has implications for everyone.
Huguenin argued that the photography was a form of expression and that under the First Amendment, the state could neither compel nor restrict expression or speech.
Huguenin felt she had found support in the Supreme Court case of Wooley v Maynard.
In that case, New Hampshire resident Maynard and his wife were devout Jehovah Witnesses whose religious beliefs forbid taking or adhering to any oath such as the state motto of “Live Free or Die” found on automobile license plates. Maynard took to covering the motto up, resulting in his being cited three times, convicted and serving time in prison.
Maynard sued arguing in part the state could not force him to express ideas with which he disagreed. The Supreme Court held: