Seth Horst and Dave Faller sit down with Kate Hartley, attorney for the Pacific Justice Institute, to discuss 1st amendment violations, Title 7, Freedom of Religion, and parental rights in the state of Idaho. They discuss several ongoing court cases in Idaho, which are sure to ruffle some feathers. This is going to be a very controversial podcast so buckle up!

Links:

https://pacificjustice.org/

Sponsor:

This podcast is brought to you by Your North Idaho Agent.  YourNorthIdahoAgent.comOur team is comprised of Former First Responders and Veterans and we have years of experience in all aspects of Real estate purchase and sales. 

We don’t just sell homes- we sell- the north Idaho experience.

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/your.northidahoagent/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/northidahoagent
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHz9XczupyJ93VRtqfQEW-g

0:00

In today’s episode, we sit down with Kate Hartley, a local attorney who has taken the fight for free speech, freedom of religion and parental rights right here in Idaho, hot topic, let’s go north Idaho is a throwback to a better time in American history, a time when values and characters still mattered, from home school moms, hunters and homesteaders to business owners, veterans and first responders. We are a unique community held together by a common thread, a love of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are the stories of those who choose to call North Idaho home. Welcome to the north Idaho experience. All right, we’ve got Kate Hartley with us today. Welcome to the north Idaho experience. By the way, I should also say we are on all audio platforms. You can find us on other platforms that have less censorship. If you’re finding us on YouTube, we’re out there. So rhyme with Bumble, not the app Bumble. We’re not on the app. But I don’t even know what that is, but it sounds dangerous. Kate is an attorney, and she works with the Pacific Justice Institute, which is a nonprofit today, we’re going to talk about free speech. We’re going to talk about parental rights. Some of this is probably going to get the old snip from YouTube, so if you want the full version, you know where to find us elsewhere. But let’s jump right in. So thank you for joining us. I’m very excited about this conversation. You’ve got two former cops and an attorney in a room. Who knows what’s gonna happen. We’ve been getting along famously so well, so that so far. So that’s good. The free speech thing, this came up. A friend of mine actually connected me with Kate. It really started because and did you even know about this? I didn’t the cross ban downtown Coeur d’Alene. I heard something about it. But dude, rumors are just right. They so they flood. We have someone in the room that has probably a lot of good insight on that. So if we can dive into that first, and I’m talking about, was it the fourth of July parade? It was yes. So the fourth of July parade downtown Coeur d’Alene is put on by the Coeur d’Alene Chamber of Commerce has been for years, and they issued some new rules this year before the parade for all people who were entering. You know, a float in the parade that no religious symbols were allowed, no political symbols were allowed. You know, they had a list of rules. And so the thing that got most people’s attention right off the bat was no religious symbols, because many different floats were either sponsored by Churches or had some kind of connection to religion, and that was obviously going to be a part of their of their float, of their expression during the parade. So this became a really big issue, and of course, my phone blew up when, when these rules were issued. What can we do about this? This has to be illegal. And the reality is, and this was actually a really good opportunity to explain this to a lot of different people who contacted me, and I’m sure other people as well. Chamber of Commerce is a private entity, right? So it’s not the government. And constitutional issues you know are only there related to government, right? So the government cannot suppress your speech, can’t suppress your freedom of religion, but a private entity can right? And ultimately, that’s a good thing, because when we are the private entity and we want to censor something that we don’t believe in or we don’t like, we want to have that ability, right? So that was the reality of the situation, right? And so from a legal standpoint, and then, of course, there is the court of public opinion, which is a totally separate issue. And ultimately, for people who don’t know, you know, the community, really, people all over the state were sending messages to the Chamber of Commerce saying, you know, please allow you know, people to have these religious symbols and have this religious expression. It’s an important part of our country’s heritage, celebrating the Fourth of July. You know, it was part of our nation’s founding, and it’s, it’s appropriate, right, for this holiday, this parade, and so lots and lots and lots of pressure were put on the Chamber of Commerce. And ultimately, at the last minute, they did change the rules and allowed for it. You know what this it’s, it’s, how does that? I mean, that affects the community too. Because when you talk about doing floats, you’re talking about people being able to express, you know, you think of small business, we’re always big on small business, like, how is it that that is a good thing for the community, when now all of a sudden, you’re suppressing people from not just their beliefs, but being able to represent who they are, and how they are ingrained in the community. I mean, ultimately, you build a float, it’s advertisement for you, but it’s also showing that you’re involved in the community. So now to suppress that and say, Well, you can’t have that on there. Well, I mean, what religious can can we say that we’re a church? Can we say that we have, you know, what? Exactly, I don’t think that’s beneficial to everybody. It’s no. And I guess you can, maybe I can slightly understand their initial reasoning, right? They’re trying to reduce conflict or something, because if you allow one religious symbol, then you need to allow them all. So if someone wants to get up there with a Satan worshiping float, well, we don’t agree with that. We would, in theory, have to let them express their beliefs as well, sure, but that’s what it’s all about, right? I mean, people like that. They don’t survive in an environment, you know? I mean, maybe they do something that riles people up. I mean, you see it? I mean, let’s just talk about politics, yeah. I mean, you see the Kootenai County Republicans or some sort of conservative movement come down on a parade, and everybody’s Jerry, yeah, and then you see the Idaho Democrats come down and just gets super silent, yep. Everybody just sits back to the court of public opinion right there. The other thing about that is, you know, you could make anything religious and you can make anything political, right, and so the vagueness of a type of a rule like that. And really, if you if it was a government entity, it would be unconstitutional for vagueness, right? Because what does that mean, especially now, what isn’t political? What can you not make political? You know, what can you not make religious? I mean, that can truly encompass everything, if you think about it. Does that mean the you know, political candidate can’t be part of a float, or, you know, even an active, you know, politician, right? Locally, you know, what does it mean? You know, everything is political. We’re afraid of conflict nowadays. And the truth is, is that that’s what, that’s what helps you define who you are. We’ve gone away from this, you know, oh, let’s make sure everybody’s happy and everybody’s taken care of. That’s not how people turn into who they are, right? Like it allows people, it forces suppression on people, when, realistically, conflict is a good thing. That’s how you determine. Where do I stand in this? I mean, so I don’t know. I don’t know why that’s always such a big push. I made the argument recently, and this is going to sound terrible, but that bullying should come back on some level, because I think it straightens a lot of things out. Obviously, there are extreme levels of bullying that are not okay, and I generally don’t like bullies, but when you’ve got kids that are peeing in litter boxes in schools, somebody should be there to be like, No, that’s That’s fucked up, yeah. Like, we’re not going to do that. And if an administrator can’t do it, maybe other kids need to do it, but they can’t do that anymore. It’s wallets. You weren’t able to do that stuff back in the day. You weren’t right, right, like you say, hey, there was a pecking order, and things were kept in place. And I think that pecking order is gone, and that’s just a microcosm of what’s going on in the whole country. Unfortunately, yep. So do you is free speech under attack, or what? That’s a big question. I know absolutely, yeah. Um, nationwide, and I think that there, you know, is going to be an increasing push to suppress, you know, free speech. I mean, you were mentioning you’re still getting censored on YouTube or certain things. I mean that that is, that is out there. It’s still out there. I think it’s growing. It’s a growing problem that we are seeing really, everywhere, whether that’s in schools, you know, on social media platforms. And again, social media platforms are not government, so it’s not for it doesn’t implicate First Amendment, necessarily. But just this idea of, you know, certain certain things are misinformation, or certain things are not okay to be out there, which is definitely not the spirit of, you know, our Constitution and what we were founded on at all. I saw a news article yesterday. I can’t remember it was one of the woke news agencies, but it was saying how they were insinuating that the Constitution is is the problem, and that we should redo it. Wow, wow. And I feel like people are going to believe that, right? The people that are spoon feather information from corporate control media, they’re going to buy into that. Like, yeah, yeah, we should do that. That’s right. That’s where we’re going to see a big conflict in the country, because there are plenty of people out there that will stand for the Constitution, because I think it’s an important document. I don’t know. Like, where’s that go? I don’t know. It’s frightening. I mean, we’ve seen, obviously, a lot of a lot of that happening, even just increasingly over the last several years, right? As we all know, and I you know, depending on what happens in November and, I mean, the direction, you know, the country will go, it could get a lot worse. Yeah, I think that could very well be in our future. So going back to that too, with the floats where we started at so, you know, it was titled, we’ve banned crosses. Obviously, that that was just a headline, right? It was religious symbols, yeah, right. But you hear, Oh, we banned crosses. And I think that’s what probably riled most people up here in North Idaho, because this is a very conservative Christian community. So when you say, Oh, we’re banning crosses, all of a sudden, everybody’s like, alright, yeah, what is going on? So I think that’s one of those things too. And I you know that’s the media twisting things to where it’s not really you take what it sounds like the Chamber of Commerce was trying. Do to say, hey, yeah, we don’t want the conflict, whatever else, which I disagree with, however, you know, if it would have said, Oh, we’re banning any Islamic symbols, you probably wouldn’t hear hardly a peep up here, right? Just because there’s not a huge Islamic influence up here, even though that should be protected as well under the First Amendment. So Correct, yeah. But I I’m interested just how that stuff gets flung around that over banning cross, right? Because that’s how I heard it, yeah. I think I even saw a headline somewhere like, crosses banding, yeah, sparked me. I was like, what? And I didn’t even know that the chamber of commerce side of it and how it’s a private entity. I had no idea. I just assumed it was the city doing it, yeah, of course, right? Was most people probably did. My phone blew up. No, it happened. Yeah, what’s going on explain this? So, I mean, it was a good thing to explain it, right? And so I want people to understand, you know, where, where that line between government, private entities is, um, because it’s important thing for people to understand, yeah, how’s the pressure on that when you get calls like that, I mean, it sounds like you almost have to put down the phone for a minute and be like, hold on, because there’s a lot of research you have to do to make sure that you have the information correct for people. Many times that’s true Absolutely. Like anybody I don’t always know the answer to everything. Right off the top of my head, anyone who says that they do is lying. Research has to be done. Something like that. You know, I was pretty aware of what what was going on, and was able to talk to people right away about that. But it was, you know, and I get it, people were very upset, you know, when are we going to sue the city for doing this? Blah, blah, blah. It’s like, well, this isn’t the city, you know, now there’s a caveat to that, if the government entity is putting pressure on the private entity to do something, that’s a different animal, because then the government is working to suppress speech, which they cannot do. But when you’re talking a pure private entity they can censor, right? They have a right to censor. And what I the way I tried to communicate that to everyone, is that we want it that way, right? Because when, when we’re the ones running the parade, or whatever, you know, whatever activity it is, we want to be able to control the speech as well. Yeah, right. Beth, how did you get into this line of work? How long have you been an attorney? Have you always been doing this? Or did you start somewhere else? And it’s a great question. I actually was a nurse for many years, so started healthcare. It wasn’t a nurse background. So I was, I was working in healthcare, and I started to notice within healthcare a total lack of knowledge of the law. And so that’s actually why I went to law school and to go specifically into healthcare specific issues, which I did for a number of years. And I started seeing these constitutional issues come up within the healthcare setting and with my healthcare clients. And so that’s actually how I started getting into this area. You know, I had questions asked of me, you know, am I allowed to say this at work? You know, again, from healthcare people, am I allowed to do this? Am I allowed to refuse to participate in something I disagree with? And so I started getting those questions. And so started giving myself a crash course in some of these, you know, constitutional title, seven implications. And that’s ultimately how I kind of organically got into this area and really still represent a lot of healthcare people, because these issues are prevalent in in medicine. So you just like to go to school, is what it is. So where to get rid of HIPAA, I’m done forever. We’ll see done with school. Yeah, yes. So, okay, so then, did you immediately jump into working for the Pacific Justice Institute? I, again, I started seeing doing a little bit of this on my own before that, and then then hopped into working for Pacific Justice Institute. Yeah. So you were never a defense attorney. I’m just trying to get theirs. No, yes, we do almost all plaintiff work, yes. And what is the scope of what that Institute does? So we do religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, primarily. Again, Religious freedom is a pretty big area that encompasses not only the First Amendment, but Title Seven, which is employment discrimination at the federal level, obviously at the state level, do the same thing that can be property rights, you know, for religious groups or churches, things like that. So that’s pretty all encompassing area around here. You know, I have a lot of free speech cases in Idaho and again, Title Seven, discrimination on the basis of religion, primarily. So I got, I got something that may be conflictual for us. So first amendment auditors. So first amendment auditor. So you ever watch YouTube, or you see on Instagram, where, where? Or somebody approaches law enforcement, they’re filming. They’re, you know, I mean, and they, and we call them First Amendment audit, okay, okay, I think that another name for them. I won’t say, but, you know, you get these people. You see it on, you see it online all time. A lot of times they’re posting things like, cop gets, you know, you know, they jack up a cop, or whatever else. But you see them come out, and they’re really there just to pick a fight. I mean, they’re frustrating. You get a call, Hey, there’s this person filming me and kids down at the park. You’re like, Oh, man. And you go to that and you know exactly what the call is coming to be, right? You show up. You mean, call to a cop? Yeah, yep, got it, law enforcement, right? Hey, okay, this guy’s down here filming my kids at the park, okay? And we’re like, okay, here we go. Then you show up, and the first thing the guy turns camera on you, they’re just waiting for somebody to get there. Am I doing something wrong? Officer? Well, look, some people were concerned. Am I doing something wrong? What’s your badge number? What’s and you’re like, you That’s yeah. So in a lot, yeah. And you see these videos posted all over the place, and, you know, they claim, hey, it’s free speech, it’s freedom it’s my right to come out here and do this, and I’m, you know, and and freedom of the press, whatever else, they’re all doing their thing. Do you ever deal with people that have cases like that, or try to push those cases I have not personally, no, yeah, that’s obviously not in the spirit of what we should be doing, right? I mean, that’s, it’s a phenomenal waste of time. I think that’s what I want to do, versus actual suppression and censorship, right? Right? Those types of things, they’re, they’re trying to get a reaction so that, yeah, they used to come into, this is probably like 2018 2019 they it. I don’t even know what started it, but it was, it became all the time. They would come into the front office at at our station, and they’d be filming the whole, you know, right away when they come, yeah, they’re coming to film the station, yeah, and they do public information requests, but they would request, like, ridiculous things, like, I want a copy of every ticket written in the last year. It’s like, okay, that’s 10,000 tickets. Now you’re gonna tie up, and we had to comply. Now you’re gonna tie up an office staff for days to provide this information, which won’t show you shit, and you’re gonna throw in the trash anyways, exactly. And it was, we had this, it was good. We had this crusty old sergeant, Papa Don and he was getting ready to retire, and he didn’t give two shits. And it was hilarious, because he’d be like, let me get the sergeant for you, and he’d come up and he would just light them. Not the appropriate response, I’m sure, but it was hilarious, yeah. And, you know, they do their thing and film everybody, and nothing would happen out of it. Those were difficult because, you know, they do, they do some research, for sure. I think there’s an expectation with law enforcement, like, you know they’ll come up and like, you don’t, you don’t know what Title Seven, you don’t know these. Oh, look, man, half the time you, I mean, there was times that you had PC on somebody, and you’re like, all right, I know this is a violation of code. Hold on, real quick, like, right? You have to go through stuff to see if it meets the criteria, whether or not it’s sure, you know, it’s, it’s unlawful. And, man, I mean, you get set up, and it’s so difficult, yeah, because they’re filming you, they already have their responses. They’re ready to go. You know, they’ve prepped for the dialog. You haven’t, yeah, and it’s so difficult when those things happen. Here’s a question, you know, how much training do you guys get as cops in in First Amendment law or, you know, local ordinance? Okay, not a lot. You go through it. You take a little test, okay, you know how much time you would spend on it? Okay, four hour block or something. Okay, not okay, yeah, okay. You’re also talking about in the training, there’s so much to cover that it’s absolutely, I mean, it’s a lot hard, yeah, of course. So, and it’s just dumbbecups, man, she came here reinforce the law. What do you think the motive is for those people, though? Who do I mean, I think they go down rabbit holes on YouTube and other places, and they’re like, oh, it’s the same with the constitutionalists. You ever deal with them, or the people or sovereign citizens. So they are the most annoying thing. They’ll have the license plate that says, like, not, I mean, traveler, traveler, not for commerce. Like, they make up these license plates, and I do all this weird research, and they think it’s legitimate, roll down their window this far, and they won’t, like, they won’t identify themselves. Hand you papers. It is infuriating. And you’re like, you know, they’re causing this thing to escalate. Like, I just pulled you over because you were doing seven over, bro. Like, I don’t want to go down this road, right? A lot of guys, I mean, what it would force a lot of guys to do is they only want to deal with this, just walk away from it, which is not the right response, because now you’re enforcing that behavior, and it’s like, oh, yeah, one, right? But a lot of times it would just keep escalating, like, yeah, I need you. I have probable cause to make a stop. I need you to identify yourself. You’re required to and then, okay, now what? Now we’re gonna, like, break the window, and now we’re gonna arrest this guy like he. It’s a terrible situation to be put in, and that’s first amendment auditors, because it’s almost like, you know, when Antifa came to town, Chief up here did a great job of not putting black and whites and uniformed personnel and in the way, right? Because that’s where the conflict happened, right when, when they went through and they they marched and they said their things and they did what they needed to do, which is their right to do right. Nothing happened. But when there was law enforcement thrown in, then there’s a conflict. And it was a chosen conflict. Well, when you weren’t there, it was almost like, Okay, well, we said we needed to do we’re out right? And so that’s what it feels like with the First Amendment auditors. You get these people that think they know the constitution so well? Yeah, they think that you have to what’s your badge number? Like, bro, it’s not even a thing. It’s our department. What are you talking about? You want my employee ID number I get paid on? I’m not sure. Like, what also minimizes actual first amendment violations. You know that are real. That minimizes, like, the work we do. You know where, you know where there’s true suppression, right of speech in a non setup manner, you know, what’s the type of stuff you deal with when you say that there’s true suppression? What’s like an example of the most common type of suppression that you’re seeing that people come to you with? I think that there’s, and as you know, there’s a huge divide right in the country right now on political beliefs, religious beliefs, and how those intersect. And, you know, yeah, anybody, everyone knows that. And so it’s just trying to control the narrative, you know? So you get a school, any government entity, who has, who’s basically taken a position on something, and then you get people that disagree with that, and they voice that opinion, and then they get punished, right? So and again, that that comes up in a number of different ways, whether it’s, you know, school work, just this, you must accept our narrative, or we’re going to, you know, treat you adversely in some way and so and just with the increasing division of thought that we have in this country right now, I think that is why it’s coming up. More and more you have, you know, employers that say this is this is our stance on this issue, you know. And then you get someone who, I mean peacefully and again, without causing a problem in the workplace, just expressing their opinion that’s adverse to that and boom, they’re fired. They’re you know, whatever it may be, you know, division and emotion is good for business. Yeah. I mean, you look at what, whether you agree with it or not, though, the left side works a lot off of emotion right? Now, there’s a lot of emotional people that, if you were to sit down and have a conversation about a hot topic, abortion with somebody that is a hard sided leftist, this is, you know, there should be no restriction. There’s not going to be a conversation that happens. People have lost the emotional intelligence. I talk about emotional intelligence all the time, right? They don’t have the ability to converse and have a conversation about it, to find out where people truly are. And I think that’s one of those things that you know, First Amendment, or rights or constitution, it becomes very emotional for people. And if you can get somebody emotional, you can get a lot of backing behind it, right? Yeah, you can get a lot of backing behind an emotional state, right? And then with those emotions, they call someone’s peaceful opinion, hateful, discriminatory, harassing, you know, pick your adjective, you know. And then it just spirals from there, and people you know get fired for this, or kicked out of school, or whatever it may be, right? Yeah, there’s, there’s that, that implication that what you’re doing is not good for this person, and even though it doesn’t affect all these other people, because what you’re doing affects this person, we’re gonna make it to where everybody can’t do that, because that one person, or that one event or or possibility, and that happens constantly. Yeah, it does. You said you were working a case right now. Can we? Can we dive into that a little bit? Sure? Yeah, yeah, let’s scoop. So we just filed a new lawsuit, free speech lawsuit based down in Sun Valley, so southern part of the state. So we represent a woman who attended a public Pride festival down there. And there was this big, you know, drag show in front of kids, kids involved in that, okay? And so she goes to this and she just starts talking to people. She goes up to the booths, you know, that were set up at the festival, and she just starts having conversation. She actually approached this church booth that was there, and just start having a conversation, you know, with them, you know. Why do you think this is, you know, okay for kids, and just had a peaceful conversation. They reacted very poorly to that, and they called security. Said, You need to leave. Okay? And she actually peacefully left. And ultimately, the police were called. And so, um. Police officer shows up, and he approaches the booth and says, Oh, I heard some horrible person came and talked to you, you know, tell me about that. And, you know, he goes on and on about how that was inappropriate. She shouldn’t be saying anything like that. He tries really hard to find something to cite her for. And again, she’s gone left peacefully. She’s not even there anymore. And so he kind of realizes he can’t cite her for anything. And so he gets picture of her license plate number from somebody else, and goes to her home, oh boy, and knocks on her door and says, you know you cannot go back there. You You know shouldn’t have done what you did and intimidated her, basically, was this officer wearing assless chaps at the time. I don’t even understand this, sorry cops. I mean, you know, what do you guys think about that? I mean to me, that’s like, she he’s intimidating. Nothing here to not, yeah, right. I mean, going to her home. That’s weird. You know, when she’s already left again, I understand if she’s there still, cause, you know, she never caused a problem, but you know, if, if it was heated in the moment, I understand, right? You know, making sure nothing escalates but she’s gone, where’s the real victim? Like, where’s the real victim? That’s what I’d always look at when I was a cop, like, I show up and there’s really not a victim, like you said, and he determined that before he went to her house. I mean, everyone he interviewed said she wasn’t threatening us, she wasn’t harassing us. She, you know, she wasn’t vulgar, she wasn’t in anything, right? She was just talking to us. And is this a public place that she’s in? Yes, public park. I have an issue with that. Yeah. Are we talking about England or the US here, this is wild. I mean, we just talked about, I admitted it to him the other day, and I feel bad admitting this. Like, there’s times where, like, I said, I pulled up on traffic stops with people, and you just get a complete pain in the ass, and it’s a seven over, yeah, right. And you’re like, oh my gosh, just have a good day. Like, you don’t want to deal with it. You’re like, this isn’t worth the court time, that anything that’s going to come of this is just not going to be a useful amount of my time, of the community’s time, of anything else. Like, does that mean that every person that complains in line should get out of a ticket? No, but, I mean, there’s times where you’re like, all right, where is this really? Where’s the end game for this? I don’t want to be part of this. Yeah. Yep. Just, is it worth it? Yeah? The ID back, yeah. So what it comes down to is, you know, this cop was siding with one viewpoint essentially over another, right, right, which is not a cop’s job, as you know, right? It’s to keep the peace and enforce the law. And this was not that, you know. So we will see what happens with this case. Yeah, ultimately, that’s a call where I’m the type of person like, why did you guys call? Yeah, why do you need law enforcement to be here to handle Yeah, yeah, because your feelings got hurt serious. That’s pretty much what it comes down to. Yeah. I see a lot of times I’m just the opposite. I’m like, can you please not utilize public resources. Yeah, this is a, I have other things to do. Yeah, right, yeah, that’s crazy. Yeah. So that ended up being a free speech thing, yeah, yeah. So we filed, yeah, um, federal case based on First Amendment free speech. It was just filed. So nothing’s happened yet, so we’ll, we’ll see where that goes. Yeah, he’s gonna get smack. He should get smacked for that. And as you, as you probably know too, cops enjoy a lot of qualified immunity, right? And so that for you know, on our end in this case, that’s a big barrier to overcome, sure. Um, so and so we’ll see, we’ll see how the courts handle this. Can you explain what qualified immunity is for those that don’t Sure? So can you give us a nasty comment? Yes, oh, that’s right. You know, it’s not a good thing to punish. You know, mistakes, right? When someone is on duty, right? You know, trying to do their best, as you know, everyone makes mistakes in what they do. So there’s a protection in the law, you know, for police officers, um, you know that if they really didn’t know the law they were dealing with, or, you know, made an error, you know, they are covered by immunity. They can’t be, you know, they can’t be subject to liability criminally correct or civilly, like in this case, civilly, so. And the standard is, if the cop absolutely knew what the law was at the time, you know, knew that, you know, this person had a specific constitutional right, for example, at the time that he was doing what he was doing and still disregarded that. That’s how you can overcome qualified immunity. And I’ve heard a lot of most of the qualified immunity cases that I’ve heard have been people have been protected because they’ve followed policy. And it’s actually the policy in the department that gets exactly, gets hung out to dry on it, because of the if my policy says, Hey, this is what you can do, and I do it kind of like high speed pursuits, right? Right? They say I can pursue and it meets all the standards. And I pursue and somebody gets hurt, right? Right? It’s not coming after me. It’s after the department and the policy, the policy, right? Exactly. I believe. I think this has happened. There are a few states out there that have removed qualified immunity completely, yeah, I thought Colorado was one. It might be. It’s, you know, the usual states you would figure. I’m pretty sure California is on that route, which is super scary for cops. Obviously, there’s two sides to it, right? Sure, the side you’re dealing with, it’s kind of a barrier for you. But on the same note, like, if you get in a pursuit and you’re doing everything by policy and by law and something happens, you’re protected that way as well. You should be, and you should be in those circumstances, right? Because it’s like, no cop is going to want to do the job. I wouldn’t do the job, sure, if I don’t have that protection. And I agree with that, yeah, that’s a vigilante, yeah, right. You just do it and you you suffer the own consequences. No, sure. Yeah, yeah. Okay. So what other you guys also deal with family law? Or, sorry, was it parental rights? Yes, which is a really tough area legally at the moment. In other words, you know, at federal law level, there’s just not a lot of protection. I mean, when it comes down to it, you know, parental rights are kind of hanging by a thread, and at the state level it can be better. So the state of Idaho has some pretty decent parental rights laws. Other states do not. I mean, you mentioned California, Washington, Oregon, those types of states, so many parental rights have been stripped. Can they give an example of what something would be? Yeah. I mean, in schools, for example, even parental notification of how a student is behaving, either from a mental health standpoint, so that, like in in California and other states like it, those types of things have been mandated by state law that parents do not have a right to be notified of of what their child is doing, saying how they’re acting. Are they transitioning at school? I mean, that’s obviously where it’s coming up a lot right now. That’s a big, big problem. It’s better here. Definitely. What’s the mindset to come up with a law like that that removes the parents from their primary job? I think it’s that they think that they know best, that they know more than the parents is control, right? They they the people, the school employees, you know, will just go all encompassing. School employees are the the experts, right? And they are the experts, and they know what’s best for that child, not the parents. And the parents may be again, these other terms. They may be hateful at home, they may be discriminatory at home, right? And but we’re not. We’re we’re at the school. We’re school employees. We know better. It probably began with good intentions, possibly, because there, you know, obviously, there are a lot of parents, of people we dealt with, right, that you know, are not fit to raise kids, sure, but you’re also, you’re also elevating a group of people over another. You’re elevating a group of people that, because they are teachers or because they’re lawmakers or whatever else, they have a better interest in your child than you do. Yeah, and that’s a huge break. I mean, where does it stop and say, well, at home. Now you have to feed your child this at home now your child needs to go bed at this time because the government says, So, right? Like, where does that stop? It’s very slippery slope, is it? And I always, I always defer to incompetence first, right? But it’s, I mean, I can’t really do that anymore, because when I look at the government or the the country as a whole, I’m starting to say, well, maybe there’s a plan here that is beyond incompetence. Is it control? That are we? Are we just stripping away everything until the government, Big Daddy, just tells us everything? That’s control? I think it is too. And, you know, I deal with this with a lot of people. So I came from my parents divorced at a young age, five years old. And so I understand I didn’t, I didn’t utilize it as much, I believe. But I know I did utilize it is that when you’re not getting along with one parent, you evacuate and go to the other right there. There’s a cup that’s not being filled here, so you go over here, and that one does and then when it doesn’t work over here, you jump back to the other side. And so I feel like, without the responsibility that the government actually has for children, right? Like they, they don’t, they don’t house them, they don’t feed them, they don’t clothe them, they don’t do those things. They just, you know, they have the education side of it, without the actual responsibility and hands on, they can play like the grandparent, right, right? Like, well, right? We don’t have to tell your parents this time that we gave we don’t have to tell them that you had that treat that you weren’t supposed to have. And I think that almost maybe that’s maybe, that’s an underlying tone in our society, is why people trust so much of the government, as opposed to the people that are actually. Writing for Yeah, and I will say, I mean, there are absolutely wonderful individual people within the public school system, right, teachers, administrators. So, I mean, those people are absolutely out there. They’re doing a great job. But the system, you know, itself, is a different thing to talk about 100% clarify that this is not coming at the school teachers. That’s how, that’s how government works. You hide behind the people that actually care, that are the boots on the ground, yep, but if you can regulate them right on what they can and can’t do exactly to keep their jobs, right? You know, because you got to keep your job, Yep, you got to keep your job, pension. You take an advantage of good people. I mean, even, even high levels of government, I bet you there. I mean people that are trying to come out with all, you know, all sorts of things that are good. There’s a way to twist it right. Somebody that came up with the idea of a cell phone probably had some pretty good intentions on how cool would this be? And now we have a monitoring device that walks around with us everywhere we go, listen to everything you say. You know, there’s something that twists it at some point right. Spark. Anything can be twisted. Probably, is there hope, except for Seth. Seth can’t be twisted, not physically. So, I mean, Idaho is better than other places, right? I think so absolutely. There we have better state law protections. I still am of the opinion that the system is still broken, probably everywhere, when you’re talking public school. I think public school system, again, system, not individuals, is broken. But that being said, compared to other places, we parents have more protections. Here. Yes, I removed my kids from public school years ago, and I think a lot of people up here make that same choice very popular in this community. It is, and these were some of the factors, right? Like, I don’t, I don’t politics, all of this thing does not have a place in school, right? And when you have teachers that are starting to push an agenda one way or the other, it’s not okay, right? Yeah, it’s not neutral, right? Anymore, for the most part, they have, they have a viewpoint, and they expect everyone to follow it, and if you don’t, you could be on the chopping block. So how is Idaho on discipline for your kids? How is it on discipline? Yeah, in terms of parental rights and disciplining your kids, you know, I mean, 50 years ago, you could slap your kid over the face with a with a ruler, and nobody thought any different of it. Right? Nowadays, you do that in California, you go to prison for 30 years. Like, I mean, there’s, there’s a difference in how you can, how you can manage your children. How’s Idaho in terms of discipline on children? How does that play out? Well, it sounds like you’re kind of referring to the criminal side, which I’m not as familiar with, you know, from like, a CPS standpoint, you know, that’s certainly looked upon, you know, by CPS as a problem, right, you know. And again, if you are a foster parent or something of that nature, totally disallowed, right, right? Totally disallowed. And there, you know, there are good reasons for that, you know, depending on where these kids have come from, you know, on the criminal side. I’m not as familiar with that, right? But CPS, you know, again, that’s another probably nationwide problem, just them getting into situations they should never, never be entering in, investigating families for reasons they should not be investigating them. We deal with some of that, you know, that’s, that’s a growing issue as well every everywhere, including here. I mean, well, you ask people, you know, you ask my dad, you ask him, you know, if he spoke back in school, even the teachers would backhand Right? Like, yeah, that’s not going on, for sure. I know that isn’t, but it’s funny how that, I mean, that changes this, right? Like, when there’s not that consequence of, like, Man, if I say something bad in front of grandma, like she’s gonna smack me. Now, it’s like, I can call CPS on you, right, right? Yeah, yeah. It’s crazy. That is crazy. I can, I can. I mean, I don’t want kids to get hurt, right? I mean, there’s a reason that it was put in place. You don’t want, you don’t want parents taking advantage. We have a lot of parents to take advantage of their kids. We’ve both seen it a ton, and it’s not okay, sure. But then there’s also, I don’t have any calls I’ve been on where, you know, the kid claims, like, Oh, Dad did this to me. He talked to dad, and he’s like, yeah, yeah. I slapped him right across the face because he told his mom to shut up. Yeah? And it’s like, camera off. And you’re like, all right, this is a disciplinary thing, right? This is not, this is something I’m going to step out of, right? Watch your mouth, yeah. And those are, those are tough situation. So, right? I was interested in where Idaho stands and stuff like that. Yeah, yeah, what other kinds of things does the institute take care of? Again, we were talking a little bit about Title Seven. We handle a lot of Title Seven cases, which is Federal employment, anti discrimination. We in particular, do a religious discrimination. So, you know, we represent a lot of people who were fired during covid, you know, refusing to take vaccines, be tested, those types of things again, who made formal objections to their employers for religious reasons that they didn’t want to do any of that. You. Um, we have a lot of those cases nationwide, um, and in other areas within Title Seven. So, you know, people requesting certain days off, even for religious purposes. Um, you know, growing amount of people taking Christmas off. Yeah, there you go. Hey, Sarge, yeah, sorry. There’s a growing we have a growing number of cases people you know refusing to use opposite pronouns, right? Because that violates their sign me up. That violates their religious belief, right? That there’s there’s male and there’s female, right? And I’m just, I’m gonna put it out there if you send me an email and you have your pronouns listed at the bottom of the email, it’s going into the trash. I just refuse to participate. And I think that more people need to refuse to participate, because it’s nonsense. Yeah, we just lost like, four clients out of a million. I don’t care. People are being fired, though, for not gonna call that boy a girl, you know? I mean, that is real. Totally. That is happening. We handle those cases that’s actually happening. There’s this crazy there’s a distortion in reality for people, and they’re not like, there’s a distortion where, well, this person is a cat, that’s how they identify. Well, yeah, a cat in Idaho is personal property, and I’m gonna throw a leash on it and I’m bringing it home like, I can’t, I know there’s a discussion in reality. So I support those people that say, Look, this is, I don’t care what that person is saying they are, yeah, yeah, come on. And how far does that go? Like you said, I mean that that is a huge snowball effect. And what else I mean, and from a mental health standpoint, you know, we don’t affirm people who have schizophrenia and say, Oh, they they should absolutely go be schizophrenic and not have any control over their behavior. You know what? I mean? Like, we don’t do that in any other area, you know, of mental health, if you want to call it that, yeah. But this, we have to, right? We have to affirm their confusion, and that’s because that’s what it is, right? We’re affirming their confusion and their potential mental health problem rather than treat it. That was put a lot, you know, better than I did it. Yeah, well, but I yeah, be a little more careful. But I get like, I don’t. I don’t want to be held to that standard. It’s too many rules. I don’t know. I’m going to break them at some point, by accident or not, so I just refuse to participate, because now I break that rule, and now I’m potentially criminally in trouble, like, what cops too? I’m sorry to interrupt you. No, no. Yeah. I mean, what if you were in a situation as a cop, and you’ve got, you know you’re trying to deal with a high, you know, alert situation, and someone’s telling you to use different pronouns, or, I’m a they, them, and I mean, how confusing for you to be dealing with that. Make a report about it. It’s court potentially, you know what? I mean, right? Like you’re, you know, that’s part of your job. Well, you know how confusing. You can’t even do your job appropriately because you’re worried about pronouns, right? That’s not good. You booked him a male instead of a female, yeah? Well, right, sir, drop the gun. Oh, oh, hell no, right, I’m a man like, god damn it, like, I don’t know, but I dealt with that so just but this is how fast things have changed. I mean, when I was a medic back in I think it was 2007 or 2008 we had a guy that we would run on constantly, and he would dress up like a female, right? He was a guy. I knew this because he also dropped burning water on his is Johnson one day. So we had to deal with that. So this is a guy that we would go on had severe mental health issues, right? I mean, we’d go on. I mean, he’d be wearing 28 bras, and he’d have everything stuffed, and he’d be talking in a female voice, yeah. And there was the understanding that, you know, this guy’s got some mental health issues, like, this is not something. But he would tell me things like, um, I’d say, you know, Tony, or what are we today? And I’m filling out my paperwork, I’m a female, okay? And then you start talking like a female, and I’m like, Okay. And then he would be like, Well, what do you mean? Am I female? I said, Do you have a penis or a vagina? And he’d be like, I have both. Okay. He goes, one shrivels up and becomes the other. And so, you know, you hear this, and you’re like, Okay, this is a person with mental health issues. This isn’t normal. And then there’s this change that’s happening over 20 years that you can say similar things, and they’re regarded as, okay, you’re accepted for that, right? Hold on, and we have to ultra protect you, actually, right, even more. So, I mean, that’s where it’s that’s where we’re at right now. But 20 years ago, we had the we had the foresight to go we need to get you some help. Now, we’re like, you don’t need any help. It’s everybody else that needs help to understand who you are exactly, well put exactly, what it is officially the episode that will get us banned. No, okay, sorry. It was all me, that’s right. It’s important. It is so the seven. So Article Seven. Like you said, I think this is where, this is where it comes in. Really important in your job is the fact that this type of stuff is now messing with people’s livelihoods and everything else. Where they have really is they have been a certain way, and it’s been okay forever, right? It’s been okay to believe in this. You know that religious freedom or or turn things down, or whatever else, and now they’re told, You know what, things have changed, and now what you do is inappropriate to the point that you can be fired. Yep, and they use the term, I mean, this is happening everywhere. It’s harassing, you know, to not use someone’s pronoun. It’s hateful, hate speech. I mean, that’s another term thrown out a lot. Um, it’s discriminatory, you know. And so they are fired on those bases, you know, based on the employer’s policy or whatever, right just because they disagree, you know, and that’s happening a lot. That’s roughing a lot. I think what’s really hard too, is that, once again, you’re playing off of people that don’t necessarily when you get high enough, your job is protected as long as you enforce what they’re asking you to do, right? Right? I mean, it’s almost like, All right, well, if I don’t enforce this, then I get fired. So Seth, you’re fired because you didn’t, you didn’t do this, right? You’re putting some good people in some bad spots, absolutely, and you’re, you’re pitting them against each other. And I don’t like it, because it’s really not, it’s usually not the manager that’s making those decisions. It’s a policy that comes down that they’re presented with. Down, that they’re presented with that here’s your options. Do you want to be fired? Or do you want to push this forward? It’s a good point. Yeah, it sucks. Exactly. Is there a turning point in this? Like, is it looking good? Hopefully, hopefully enough lawsuits have been brought, you know, to, you know, get employers to understand they can’t just have a narrative, take a side and get away with it. That’s it, right? Taking the side like, I really don’t care what people do in their private lives, like, do whatever you want, as long as you’re not harming someone else, I don’t care, or as long as you’re doing your job. From an employer standpoint, are you doing your job? Are you doing it well? Are you meeting all of the necessary qualifications to be in your job. I mean, that historically, is what has been looked at right in hiring someone and retaining somebody. And again, we’re seeing these employees who have had absolutely no prior issue. I mean, have absolutely no issues within their job, and they are either privately, completely privately or very peacefully at work, just stating their opinion that might be opposite of the majority opinion or the company’s opinion, and they are being hammered. And it’s almost like it’s a forced acceptance where, you know, I tell people all the time like, Look, I I have friends that are completely opposite spectrum of me, and that’s fine. You know what I mean? Like, I mean the big, the big push over the past few years has been, has been, you know, the pride flag, and a lot of that, I have friends that fly that flag, and that is, and you know what? I’ve never, ever thought differently of them, but I’ve also never had them put me in a position that you must agree that this is okay, because the truth is, I’m very open to people I say, Look, that’s not in my faith. I don’t believe this standard, but I love you, right, and I care about you, and if that’s how you’re gonna live your life, I’m gonna 100% support you. You go ahead and do that, and damn the person that comes in that tries to take you down because of your beliefs or how you want to live your life. I’ll stand in between anybody like that, yeah, but I also am not going to have it pressed upon me to where you must also agree with how I live my life. I had friends that smoked meth. I don’t agree with it. I still love you to death, but I’m not going to come over when you’re smoking meth and cheer for you exactly. I’m not going to encourage the behavior. That’s not what I agree with, but I still love you the same, and you do your thing, and that’s fine, right? And and like to take it back to the employment thing. Like, if I was a cop anymore, and I’m on the side of the road and I’m dealing with again, I’m looking at the license and it says female, and the person is, like, tell me, call me a dude or whatever. Like, I don’t give shit, okay, I’ll call you dude, like, whatever. Okay, but I don’t want to get fired over saying the wrong thing if I slip up or I put in the report female, because that’s what your license says. You’re a biological female, you know, like I said on scene, I don’t give a damn. I’ll call you whatever you want. Like, doesn’t matter to me, but, yes, but there’s some people who really have a full objection to even doing that. Say this person is a female. I can’t call them a male, so yeah, but Right. And you know, our laws protect those people from having religious objections. I mean, that’s what it comes down to. First Amendment protects them. Amendment protects them. Title Seven protects them. State laws protect them. And I think we notice that there’s a hostility towards the fact that religion is protected right a lot more than this other stuff. And is it religion, or is it Christianity? I think it’s religion. I mean, obviously our nation was found. Did with Judeo Christian principles and values. There’s no, I mean, there’s no doubt about that, but religion is in within the law, all religions are protected. No, I know that very broadly, actually, like in general people, I feel like there’s a big, you know, it’s just like seeing all the people when there’s everything going off in Gaza and Israel, right? All of a sudden there’s a bunch of college groups that are like, Oh, Israel. Like, just against Israel, yeah. And then I’m like, Do you know where Gaza is on a map? Like her to pull up map. Do you know where it is? You know, you don’t have any clue. Okay, so they don’t know enough. I don’t know any of the history, or they don’t know shit about it, but they’re like, I’m gonna pick it, because these Jews are bad. And it’s like, Are you for real? Anyway? So I feel like there’s definitely an undertone that, you know, there’s that expectation that white, Christian, middle class, male American like those, are attacked now more than anything, because there’s that expectation, you know, what? Damn any of those people that want to put pressure on people that don’t fit that narrative, don’t fit that mold, right, like that shouldn’t happen. That’s what makes America great, is the fact that you can be heterosexual or homosexual, you can be Muslim or Christian or anything else, and you should be able to thrive right, without persecution right over this right, you should right and respected for your opinion 100% even in your workplace, absolutely, yep. That’s probably what’s wrong with the country. Is not like we’re just not doing that anymore, like we’re not having conversations exactly with all sides. And that’s the hardest thing. It’s so crazy that when you meet somebody like being a very conservative Republican, per se, versus somebody that’s an extreme Democrat. It’s hard to get people to come sit at the table and say, let’s talk about it. I hear I hear me completely different. Instead, it turns out to be a yelling thing from the other side, and then my immediate response to punch somebody in the face. So that’s just and then you’re harassing me because you disagree with me. You know what I mean? Like, there’s, that, that element going on too. And if we were, man, I bet if we discussed a bunch of these things, we’d probably all find ourselves coming to the middle a little bit. Yeah, because you know what I mean. So yeah, but it’s hard to have those conversations nowadays. Oh yeah, very hard, yeah, especially when it’s family. Oh yeah, I got that. I had a buddy from high school just lost his mind on me and made all these accusations. And I’m like, Man, you haven’t seen me in 25 years. Like, what is going on? But you know, he lives in the Bay Area, and that’s his thing, and that’s what he’s going to go off of. And it’s like, okay, well, all right, have a good day. Like, you don’t want to sit at the table and have the conversation, yeah, yeah, right, yeah. And a lot of times this has happened to me, multiple times they take snippets of the conversation I’ve had. This happens like once a month for me, I’ll have a family member reach out and, like, it blow up on me through messaging of some type about something we talked about here. But they’re not listening to the whole hour. They’re watching a 32nd clip. Oh yeah. And they see this section where I say I don’t respond to emails with gender pronouns, and they think I’m an awful person, but like, in reality, I love everybody. I just don’t want to play that game. There’s no reason to, and that’s kind of one of the things with especially, you know, you talk about privacy, private industry, private entity, business, is being able to make that choice. Like, you know, I love seeing the signs that say we reserve the right to refuse business, yeah, service to anybody, sure. Okay, well, some people get offended like that. What? Yeah, well, well, why not? I reserve the right at my house, right to who comes in, who doesn’t. How do we do it? Don’t ring my doorbell, yeah? Ever, yeah, I don’t have to invite you into my house, right? You know that choice? It’s the same thing, property owner, yeah, when you’re providing a service to somebody, well, somebody’s not going somebody’s not going to be respectful if somebody is going to cause issues, if they’re going to walk in and say, Well, I want to eat here, but you have to follow my rules. Well, no, yeah, you can leave. Yeah, it’s that simple. It’s that simple. There’s other places to eat. Yeah, what other hot topics you uh, working on? Well, we were talking a little bit about the hate crime issue, you know. And I got so city of Coeur d’Alene recently passed a local ordinance, you know, identifying hate crimes and the punishment thereof. Got a lot of questions about that. And you know, whether or not that implicates First Amendment, you know, free speech, free expression, rights. And it’s very interesting question. And you know, the answer is a bit complicated. The answer is maybe, you know, depending on how that is applied, it absolutely could be. And I mean, we generally oppose hate crimes for a bunch of different reasons, right? I mean, just from a I mean, you guys are cops from a justice standpoint, um, why would it matter? I mean, a crime is a crime. You know, if a crime has been committed and there’s a victim of that crime, why should you know certain victims get. And you know, better outcomes essentially on justice, from a justice standpoint, just because of who they are or what they look like, right? So it doesn’t make sense, you know, for that reason. And there’s just a growing, I guess, acceptance of, you know, these hate incidences and hate bias and hate speech, which is, by the way, not a thing, right? Hate speech is protected speech, but those terms are being thrown out and thrown out and thrown out. And it’s confusing, right to people, and that just it’s, you know, we’re creeping towards punishment for having a certain type of expression, right? And so, you know, locally, city of Coeur d’Alene, you know, I as written, you know, is it a concern? You know that we have this ordinance, don’t think it directly implicates First Amendment, free speech rights, but how is it going to be applied? Right? We don’t know yet, something to look out for. Why did they feel like they needed that is there not a state I don’t know. I’ve never, actually never, dealt with a hate crime, but, yeah, is there no state law already? There isn’t at the state level. There is federally. And I just, I just think it’s a statement that they’re trying to make. You know, there have been looking something up over incidences, you know, locally that have people concern, you know that are there was, you know, racist comments, you know, things like that, right, which, you know, don’t advocate for that, right? You know, definitely don’t advocate for that. Um, but a crime is a crime, right? And that should be dealt with, like, like every other crime. And I think once we start delineating, it just has, you know, we should sound the alarm on how that’s going to be applied. Yeah, is the bigger issue. Like using words against someone, or because, I mean, I’m trying to think of an example, like if, if dirtbag targets this person because of the color of their skin, and murders them or something, right? Okay, maybe that’s a hate crime, is it? Yeah, but it’s a crime, right? I mean, a murder, is a murder? Is it? Is it enhanced crime because of the can be reason? Maybe it can be Yeah, because they did that for a racial reason, right? Right? But if they’re throwing words out, yeah, is that part of the new ordinance, well, and that’s a crime. That’s what people are concerned about. That words alone would somehow implicate criminal activity, right? Versus it being a crime no matter. So, for example, you know, you go destroy someone’s private property, you know, for example, okay, that’s a crime in and of itself. And then on that private property you say, you know, so you know some racial slur, or, you know, some sexual slur, or something like that, to indicate that, oh, that’s why you committed that crime against that person that can have an enhanced penalty. The versus just destroying property is a crime in and of itself. Yeah, the risk is, like, is if the goal post keeps getting moved, you know what I mean, like, exactly, yeah, do you know? Yeah, it gets too confusing. It’s confusing. It’s definitely confusing. And again, this is new, so we don’t know how it may be applied. City Code, correct, city of Coeur d’Alene, okay, because I know the stakes. I remember I was going back. So, um, title 18, chapter, 79 is malicious harassment, but obviously not, uh, as specific as something else. I mean, it says, basically, it’s unlawful for any person maliciously and with the specific intent to intimidate or harass another person because of person’s, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, yeah, now we obviously have a lot more than that now, right, right, right. I mean, right, sexual orientation isn’t included. And that’s a that’s a hot topic one, right? Well, in Idaho State laws, generally speaking, do not include that as a quote protected class. Yet, there’s obviously been attempts to include that gender identity also. So generally speaking, that is not in our state codes, our state anti discrimination codes, I should say, which, again, I think that’ll be attempted every year and delegates in there. But I don’t disagree with that. I don’t disagree with the fact that you shouldn’t be like, there should be a crime for maliciously coming at somebody, whether it’s slander, hate speech, whatever it is. Not, sorry, hate speech doesn’t exist. Yeah, but going after somebody for something like that because of your sexual orientation, anything else, I don’t feel like that’s that should be. It’s one thing to say, Well, I’m not gonna call you that, yeah, whatever, yeah. But to go after somebody, here’s here’s the problem those things. When does it become a problem? When does that become incompetent? Right? And now it is hate speech because you dead, name someone or use the wrong pronouns, no, absolutely where I get nervous because the goalpost, definitely wherever. Oh, totally. Right alone is different than speech on top of something that would be a crime no matter what right assault or whatever, speech alone is what we’re talking you know, we don’t want you know, the regulation of speech in and of itself, or. Russian, however, that may be, right? Well, I mean, Idaho has a code, right? We’re the first state to pass the legal definition of a man and a woman. So I don’t know if you know that’s, I mean, this is all, this is all attorney, lawyer stuff, where you go around the wall if somebody says, No, I’m a woman, or I’m whatever, I’m a cat, you’re like, No, you’re female. There’s two definitions here in the state, like, can that be something that’s protected? I don’t know. That’s scary stuff. It is. Like you said, the goal post moves, and I think that’s what’s so hard, especially for law enforcement or anybody really, yeah, like, especially if the intent isn’t there, yeah, right. Intent is huge. Obviously, in law, intent is huge, but a lot of times it can. Intent gets, gets pushed that you meant to disrupt this person. You meant to do these things too. Yeah, that’s tough. I feel like a lot of these problems can be solved by the court of public opinion in the community, right? If you have one asshole that’s running around calling people whatever. The rest of the community can be, like, Nah, dude, yeah. Like, No, you need to get physical. But I think that it can be, you know, done in a way where, like, that it’s just not okay. Like, right? Get out of here. Yeah, yeah, it’s doable. And I feel like putting these things in the hands of the government is a dangerous road to go down. I agree. And, I mean, I most, vast majority of people agree with the intent, right? I mean, you know, we don’t think anyone should be called those names, right, because of the color of their skin or whatever, whatever it may be, right? But that, like you said, that doesn’t mean the government should get involved with it and punish that over and above. You know, other crimes necessarily archaic, is that to hate somebody because of because they’re different? Like, honestly, like, how archaic is it to walk out be like, You know what? You’re different than me and I don’t like you? Yeah, it’s stupid, right? In the world? Yeah, it felt like less of a thing in the 80s and 90s, when I grew up than it does now. Unfortunately, I feel like we’ve not that old close. I feel like we’ve taken a step back in time with that. And I think that’s, yeah, I don’t know if that’s by design or what right to create chaos. I don’t know, but it feels like it sucks. Well, does that go back to schools and what they’re teaching? I mean, are they teaching division or not, either intentionally or unintentionally? I mean, is that? Is that breeding division somehow, right? Probably, yeah, yeah. Critical Race Theory. I don’t actually even know that much about that, but or that term, it’s just, it’s just hard when you know, when you’re celebrating things that are outside of the norm, and they become so prominent, you know what I mean, that you’re like, Man, this is, this is different. It’s, it’s hard, because, you know, as as a white male, I remember being told in college, so this was, this blew my mind, because I was very, very much an activist when I was in college, okay, and I remember there was a people of color graduation. And I was involved in a fraternity that was all about diversity. And it was phenomenal, right? Like it was, it was super cool. I love the premise of it. Amazing guys that I was in there with, and I remember signing up, I was like, Oh, we’re gonna have the people of color graduation, the whole premise of it was to celebrate diversity and the differences between and I wanted to go sign up, and they said, No. I said, what they’re like, yeah, no, this is, this is for people different, different ethnicities. I’m like, different than what? Yeah, different than what’s the baseline? Different, yeah, what? What exactly are we citing that makes it to where I can’t. And it was like, say it. Say it. Yeah, wow, tell me what it is. And that was rough for me, because I’m like, wait a minute. I sold this whole bill because I want people to feel equal and feel included, right? Especially, you know? I mean, race has always been a division worldwide, all over. I mean, it always will be, right? It’s so easy to identify somebody who’s looking different than you. And I’m like, That’s shit. So I fought against that, and then to be told, like, oh, because of something that you can’t change, you are not included in this. We’re gonna celebrate everything else. And I’m like, and it’s because you’re always celebrated. I’m like, Man, I should then you’re never feel celebrated now, right? Yeah, yeah. Like, inclusiveness is a huge thing. And I’ve always, I don’t think we’ve ever, I’ve never tried to put my foot down and say, Well, you’re not included because, yeah, no, yes, right? It’s like, now, if you’re going to come into my house and you want to give a speech on why we’re living the wrong way, well we’re gonna have a problem, right? It’s a little different. I never knew you were a frat boy, dude. Oh yeah, yeah. It was fun. I still never drink either. Weird, that one drop of alcohol all the way through college. So boring. Everybody loved me, so I was a sober host. Every time they had a party, I go cool. Everybody else. Things you’ve seen not that anybody drank under 21 of course, not. At all, but after the fact, like that doesn’t happen. So, yeah, okay, wow, are we gonna light some stuff up on this podcast? Might be the end, folks, good ride. I think we should call it, but I feel like we should do this every six months or so and, like, refresh, because these topics need to get talked about, update on cases. Yes, super important. Yeah, feel like new case law is so important, people don’t understand what case law means, right? And so when there’s landmark things, like, we’d want to be kept up to date too, because that’s important, I think. And like I said, it’s such a sensitive topic. Yeah, we’re talking about today, it really is. You can offend a lot of people. I’m sure clips will, but yeah, we’ll get some comments. Maybe we’ll get booted, I don’t know. But how do Is there a way to that people can support the Pacific Justice Institute like it’s a nonprofit, so donations it is sure our website is pji.org and so anyone can go there see a lot of our work posted there, and get, get a hold of us if you need help, of course, if you need legal help, um, and again, I’m, I’m the person in Idaho, so you’d be connected with me. Um, yeah, feel free. And then your folks in, once again on first amendment rights, Title Seven and parental rights, yeah. So religious freedom, free speech, parental rights is kind of our main Awesome. Yeah, as we see what’s going on in in Great Britain, we know how important this is, because that shit is crazy over there. Yeah, I don’t even know. Oh, they’re just people are getting arrested for speaking posts. Yeah, really, yes, no way. They don’t have the First Amendment or the second crazy, and the first protects the second. Boom, cool. Hey. Thank you so much. Thank you guys, thanks for having me. Thanks, Kate. Thank you all right. See you. This podcast is brought to you by your North Idaho agent. We are a full service Real Estate Team serving all of North Idaho. Our team is comprised of former first responders and veterans, and we have years of experience in all aspects of real estate, purchase and sales, from bare land to new builds, condos, commercial and resale we have your back to ensure a safe, smooth and profitable transaction. Be sure to subscribe to our real estate YouTube channel called the North Idaho experience, and check out our website at your North Idaho agent.com it’s an excellent resource to learn more about North Idaho. So if you’re looking to move right now or 12 months from now, give us a call, text or email. We don’t just sell homes, we sell the North Idaho experience, thank you for listening. If you enjoyed this podcast, the greatest compliment you can pay us is to like, subscribe and share you.