I’ve wondered about grocery store owners and employees. This is something that could really be carried to an extreme. Ultimately, God is the one who should decide. The problem is figuring out what He’s decided.]]>
You’re right the second part of my comment about LDS Business owners was parody mixed with what I would do as an LDS Business owner.]]>
A couple quibbles: I guess this is a topic for another post but I’ll tell you, I have no problem with the fact that God is being removed from the classroom. Why was he there in the first place? That’s what Sunday School, personal study and family is for. I sure wouldn’t want to leave it up to the state to teach me about God. And for them to admit that there is a God… who cares?
And your second paragraph seems almost like a parody of a comment. I guess it would be okay if you said, “if I were a business owner this is what I’d do…” but instead you are suggesting that ALL LDS business owners should follow your ideas of how to apply the Church’s teachings to their business.]]>
Are saying you personally have a free conscience in your business ethics? or that all educator’s do? I would have to disagree with part of that because there are so many liberal ideas and philosophies being pushed through the public edication system, that and the fact that God is being removed from the classrooms, and discrimination is being rampantly praticed. There are many educators that should have a very guilty conscience (though I am not saying you are one of them, I don’t know).
Personally I feel that an LDS business owner should follow LDS standards all the time in whatever he/she does. Stay closed on sundays. don’t sell/serve alcohol, or anything else that violates the word of wisdom. So if you own a restaurant you better cut back the meat to only sparse portions, and only during the winter (to comply with the Word of Wisdom “sparingly” :) – I am going to get attacked for that comment, aren’t I?) Or should I be lenient on some aspects and strict on others?]]>
I would work with my client to get him to do the best thing for him. If he was asking for something I could not in good conscience do, I would ask to resign from the case.
However, I would fight like crazy to ensure that the prosecution really did have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, with all of the procedural and evidentiary safeguards in place to protect defendants in this country, even with full knowledge of a defendant’s guilt.
For example, my client in the criminal appeals matter referenced above really *had* shot his wife. The question was the level of mental culpability in the crime, and that, it seems, is always something up for grabs. In truth, only God knows what a person was really thinking when he/she pulled the trigger.
You have to remember that those are things the tobacco industry had been *accused* of. Accusations are not fact. And even if that stuff were true, there is still a public policy issue regarding whether it is appropriate to force the industry to pay for the cancer of those who partook of the substance. There are good arguments on both sides of that fence, either of which I would be willing to make depending on who my client was (the plaintiffs, or the tobacco industry).]]>
I mostly agree with your comments–thank you.
Let me ask another hypothetical–would you defend a man whom you KNEW to be guilty, and try to get him dismissed of all charges (i.e. O.J.)?]]>
The tobacco industry is a whole different discussion. Truth in advertising, lying to the public, cover-ups and other actions me this a bit different matter to me.]]>
He said, (and I tend to agree), that defending the tobacco industry from liability to which it ought not be subjected for people’s personal choices in smoking is not the same as promoting or supporting the tobacco industry.
It’s just taking a side on a LEGAL/PUBLIC POLICY issue, and the fact that this legal issue happens to surround the circumstance of something forbidden by the word of wisdom is irrelevant. The issue is not whether or not people should smoke, but whether or not the big tobacco companies should be stuck holding the bag when people make that decision.
Along the same lines, as a law student I prepared an appeal for a man who had been convicted of murdering his wife- he shot her in the back. There was no doubt that he had been holding the gun, and that the gun did, in fact, discharge into the wife’s back, causing her death. But there were some issues raised regarding the adequacy of his representation at trial, and regarding whether the crime he ought to have been found guilty of really rose to the level of 2nd degree murder.
I took some flack at church for agreeing to prepare this appeal, but I do not feel that I was defending this man’s sin. Rather, I was ensuring that the procedural safeguards guaranteed by our system of law, no matter how heinous a crime, were properly enforced during this man’s trial. My representation of this individual was certainly not a sign of support for the crime, but a sign of belief in our system. I sincerely believed (and still believe) that certain things were unfairly (and unjustly- contrary to the rules of evidence) admitted at trial which prejudiced the jury to find this man guilty of a crime greater than that actually committed.
The point is that in my field, we often are hired to represent unsavory characters. That does not make us “slime” or other such nonsense. It does not affiliate us to the wrong-doings of those we represent or give an imprimatur of approval on those acts. Rather, it shows that we believe in the U.S. justice system and certain principles of law no matter how heinous the act- whether it be in the context of arguing that a large corporation should not be held liable for the stupidity of those using its products, or in the context of ensuring that all procedural safeguards have been enforced in a criminal trial.]]>