Posted by brightcoast on August 30, 2010
So, lately there has been much ado about law grads and new attorneys having to stoop to the level of getting jobs at coffee shops, ala Starbuck’s and the like. So I decided to check it out.
I applied to be a store manager. In addition to attaching my legal resume, I also wrote about my extensive food service and assistant manager experiences. Starbuck’s additionally requires a 60 minute trial run simulation, which tests out your judgment in hypothetical employee interaction situations, calculating simple math regarding profit-loss statements, answering basic questions about your work history, offering unique ideas in response to challenges or problems presented, and lastly about a 120 question survey regarding your “work style,” with several of the same sorts of thematic questions repeating themselves.
Lo and behold, I completed my application and the simulation, and received a rejection email within hours. Ooooh the burn.
Posted in Americana, California, The Law, USD Law | Tagged: Starbuck's, unemployment | Leave a Comment »
Posted by brightcoast on August 19, 2010
There will be no mosque AT Ground Zero. The proposed Islamic community center is blocks from the site. Obama has not expressed support or discourage the building of the structure, but rather, has confirmed that the group has the legal right to do so. See, e.g. Article or gee, I don’t know, the First Amendment perhaps?
This eerily reminds me of the type of absurd debate that only takes place in moot court c , and when I say absurd, I am referring to the generally misinformed public that is arguing against building something at Ground Zero. As though any religious group would try to build there. That’s about as far fetched ad building, say, and airplane museum at the site. From what I remember, there is already a monument there anyway, so the space isn’t on the market.
I hate this WASP mentality that only mainstream religions should be protected. I don’t seem to recall any media attention regarding the building of religious buildings near the site of the Oklahoma city bombing or the Columbine shooting, or similar terroristic type attacks committed by seemingly mainstream (or more likely agnostic/atheist) groups. Think about it, has there been any objection to the building of a church in this area or any other?
You cant have your First Amendment cake and eat it to, meaning, it is in place to protect all religions equally…. so long as their practices don’t interfere with otherwise content neutral laws of general application, see e.g. Oregon (that comment was a special treat for all you other lucky ones who also just took the Bar 😉
Anyway, there is really no legal issue here, at least that has been presented. If they own the land, their proposed use is within the zoning restrictions, and they have the money, the only “real” issue is the public’s (un)justified outcry of prejudice.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »