Same Sex Marriage Case

     Same sex love isn't anything new. But same sex marriage is a relatively new thing. Some people still don't like it, and that's okay. Everyone is entitled to his or her own belief. I understand that some people don't like it because of their religion. A company refusing to service a same sex couple is discrimination. A company can no longer discriminate by race, therefore they shouldn't be able to discriminate by sex or marital status. I feel as though the judge shouldn't have rejected the argument. The judge could've at least listened and gave better feedback. 

     The article states that "Tolerance is a two-way street." This means that companies shouldn't have to be threatened with fines or jail time just because they don't agree with something the government does. I completely understand this statement and it makes sense that someone would feel that way about it. However, if people are grouping race, gender, and marital status together, then they should be treated fairly. 

     Overall, this case was not treated the way it should have been. I mean, the case was just about a couple who wouldn't shoot a wedding video for a same sex couple because of religious beliefs. I say the videographers are losing money and probably won't good publicity from this. But this is just a pointless case, otherwise.

First Memory

The earliest memory I can remember is from when I was about 1 and a half years old. I was looking at Mount Rushmore. I think I remember it because it was something very different from anything I had ever seen. I actually had dreams about it and I didn't think it had actually happened. But when I asked my mom about it, she confirmed that it did actually happen.

The first lie I can remember telling is when I bit Bryce in front of my whole family at my birthday party. He tried riding the scooter I had just got as a present. I was mad so I bit his ear. I believe that was my fourth birthday. I lied and said I didn't mean to...but I did it in front of everyone.

Possible 28th Amendment

I would amend the 7th amendment. Instead of the amount of money having to exceed $20.00, it will have to exceed $200.00 to have a trial by jury.

7th Amendment

In Suits of common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed two-hundred dollars, the right to a trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Classical Conditioning Ad

Unconditioned Stimulus: The pretty girl.
Conditional Stimulus: The perfume.
Unconditioned Response: You want to be like her.
Conditioned Response: Feeling good and smelling good with Gucci perfume.

Teaching an Amendment

7th Amendment

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law

1.)     The 7th amendment states that to have a jury in a civil case, the case must involve at least $20.00. In other words, in order to a trial by jury in a federal court, the amount of money involved must exceed $20.00.
2.)     The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that a civil case isn't pointless. If there isn't at least $20.00 involved in the case, then there will not be a jury present: however, you can present it before a judge. It would be pointless to have a jury present if a decent amount of money isn't involved in the case. This amendment's other big thing is that everyone has the right to a fair trial with jury present.
3.)     Civil case doesn't involve criminal matters, and must be between two private parties, or between the government and a private party. Federal courts are established by the U.S. Constitution.
4.)    a. The 7th amendment was ratified in 1791. It was made because the King of England wouldn't allow trial by jury in the colonies. So when the colonists wrote the Declaration of Independence, they complained about it. That's why the right to a trial by jury is an amendment.
         b. All federal civil cases have the right to a trial by jury if the amount of money involved exceeds over $20.00
         c. Issues today would be that after the jury the decides, the judge cannot overrule that decision. So if a judge feels strongly about the matter, they cannot do anything about it after the jury has decided.