UNBIASED - Daniel Penny Indicted, Fed Pauses Hikes…For Now, Ex-Starbucks Employee Awarded $26.5M, Bipartisan AI Legislation, Plus New SCOTUS Decisions

Episode Date: June 16, 2023

1. Update: Daniel Penny Indicted for Jordan Neely Death on NYC Subway (2:59)2. Fed Announces Pause on Interest Rate Hikes….For Now; What This Means and What to Expect Going Forward (5:24)3. NJ Jury Awards Former Starbucks Employee $25.6M in Wrongful Termination Suit; Why She’ll Only See a Fraction of that Amount (10:29)4. Two U.S. Senators Introduce Bipartisan AI Legislation to Allow for Civil and Criminal Liability for Online Platforms (21:26)5. SCOTUS Released Three New Decisions on Thursday; Here’s What They Say (26:01)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Subscribe to Jordan's weekly free newsletter featuring hot topics in the news, trending lawsuits, and more.Follow Jordan on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube.All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario Helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

You are listening to the Jordan Is My Lawyer podcast, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Enjoy the show. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. Happy Friday. I hope you've had a great week so far. I'm about to make your week a little bit better with some nonpartisan news stories. So I have four stories for you plus one short story, maybe like more of an update if you will. So the first thing I'm going to talk about is a brief update on Daniel Penny, who was just indicted in the killing of Jordan Neely in New York City.

The second story is going to be about the Fed announcing a pause on interest rates. The third story is going to be about the $25 million judgment against Starbucks for wrongfully terminating an employee, which you may have heard of, and also why that employee is only going to see probably a fraction of that amount. The fourth story is going to be about a new bipartisan bill that would allow people to sue civilly and also bring criminal charges against internet platforms for AI content. And the last story is going to be a quick rundown of Supreme Court decisions that came out on Thursday.

So in total, there's three of them. So you're going to hear about three Supreme Court decisions all in one story. So it's going to be more like a brief recap of each case all under one headline. Before we get into the stories, just a couple of administrative things. One, of course, I always remind you to please leave me a review on whatever platform you listen and also to share my show with any of your friends or family that you feel will also appreciate nonpartisan news. And I also wanted to remind you of my new newsletter. So that goes out on Saturdays. It covers trending topics in the news, trending lawsuits, recent Supreme

Court decisions. There's even some humor thrown in there. So you can always subscribe on my website, jordanismylawyer.com slash subscribe. And one last thing I wanted to mention, I just wanted to give a quick shout out to all of my new listeners. I have quite a few of you on here now. I'm happy you're here. I hope you've enjoyed what you've heard from me so far, and I'm excited to keep bringing you more great content. Also, one more thing, I keep saying one more thing, one more thing, truly, my podcast made it to the top 50 podcasts in education, which means that in all of the education podcasts out there, I think there's about 500,000 of them,

I landed in the top 50, and that is all thanks to you guys, both my new listeners and my OG listeners. So just a quick appreciation for you guys. Thank you so, both my new listeners and my OG listeners. So just a quick appreciation for you guys. Thank you so, so much. Without further ado, let's get into today's stories. Let's start with a quick update on Daniel Penny, who was indicted by a 23-person grand jury in Manhattan for killing Jordan Neely on a New York City subway. Now, I'm calling this snippet of the podcast an update rather than a story because I'm not going to cover the entire backstory,

you know, on what happened on that day and what led to where we're at today. This is just going to be an update on what happened this week. I previously covered the entire story on my May 9th podcast episode, so I reviewed the events as they were reported, who Daniel Penny is, who Jordan Neely was, the potential charges against Penny. So if you're interested in all of that, definitely check out my May 9th episode. What we know as of this week, though, is that he was indicted by the grand jury in New York. So there was an initial court appearance last month where he was charged with one count of second degree manslaughter. However, we don't know what

the official charge was that the grand jury decided to proceed with because the indictment is still sealed. So we know that initially there was a charge of second degree manslaughter, but that could have changed. He is expected to return to court on July 17th. And if the charge brought by the grand jury was second degree manslaughter, that is a crime punishable by up to 15 years. Remember, this still has to go to trial. That is where it would have to be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt which is a higher standard much higher standard than what the grand jury needed to find to bring the charges but it would need to be proven beyond a reasonable

doubt that he committed second degree manslaughter what is second degree manslaughter the prosecution would have to prove that he acted recklessly in causing Jordan Neely's death. In other words, he was aware that his actions presented a substantial risk that Neely could die because of his actions, and he disregarded that risk and proceeded anyway. So there is no intent required. It's all about reckless action. So again, if you want to listen

to the full story the backstory all of the facts and decide for yourself whether or not you think this is second degree manslaughter of course we don't have all of the evidence but just based on what we know so far you are totally more than welcome to do that so just go ahead and listen to that may 9th episode that's where you'll hear all of the relevant facts. So now that we've covered that, let's dive into the first actual story, which is that the Fed paused interest rate hikes. So on Wednesday, the Fed announced that it was keeping interest rates steady for now, not for the long term, but just for now. It did signal that these rates would likely rise again by another half of a percentage point by the end

of the year. So we'll be on the lookout for that. But for now, for this meeting, they said we are not going to increase again. So let's recap what's been going on. The central bank has been hiking rates continually for the last 15 months to curb what has been the worst inflation we've seen in 40 years. The good news is it seems to be working slowly, but surely. And we know this because May's consumer price index rose at the slowest pace in two years. Because of this, the Fed decided it didn't need to raise interest rates again, at least for now, right? So they're keeping interest rates where they're at in order to be able to kind of gauge the economy's strength and ensure that the bank isn't unintentionally over-tightening. Now, what this means for you, the consumer, and another piece of relatively good news, is that mortgage rates will stay the same for now.

So it's been pretty rough for recent buyers, right? Because if you look at the numbers right now compared to what they were in early 2022, there has been a significant difference. So the current rate for a 30-year conventional mortgage is 6.8%. If we compare that to the rate in early 2022, which was 3.2%, that difference means that the monthly mortgage payment on, let's say, your typical $300,000 house now costs 50% more than it did in early 2022. So the mortgage rates will stay steady for now. But again, that doesn't mean they'll be steady for the remainder of the year. In one of the articles I was reading, it quoted a senior economist for LendingTree, and he

was saying that mortgage rates will continue to fluctuate as the housing market kind of reacts to this economic uncertainty. But with that said, if the economy does cool over the coming months, then by the end of the year, mortgage rates may be closer to 6% than 7%. So it'll be a very gradual decline. Credit cards, on the other hand, are a different beast. Those won't necessarily see a gradual decline yet. If anything, we may see more increases. If we do see a decline, it's not happening now when it comes to APRs. Even with the Fed's pause, because some banks are still implementing the most recent Fed hikes into their own fee schedules,

you're going to see APRs likely rise. Again, for now. This isn't forever. This may not even be long term, but for now. According to another lending tree analysis, the typical rate for a new credit card is likely to jump above 24% this month, which would surpass the current record of 23.98%. Obviously not a huge difference, but still we're talking about surpassing records. Keep in mind that that's for new credit cards. The APR on existing credit cards is nearly 21% right now, which marks the highest rate since 1994. So the Fed's press release surrounding the announcement of this pause, they said the following. They said, quote, holding the target range steady allows the committee to assess additional information and its implications for monetary policy.

In determining the extent of additional policy firming that may be appropriate to return inflation to 2% over time, the committee will take into account the cumulative tightening of monetary policy, the lags with which monetary policy affects economic activity and inflation, and economic and financial developments, end quote. In other words, this pause gives the Fed time to look around and assess how much higher borrowing rates are actually slowing inflation and decide how to act based on those assessments. So what's next from here? What we know is that of the 18 total Fed officials, half of them see the interest rate raising from the current range of 5 to 5.25 to a range of 5.5 to 5.75 by the end of the year.

Policymakers are forecasting a final rate of roughly 5.6% before the end of 2023. So that falls right in line with that anticipated increase. Three of the Fed officials see it rising higher than that. One official sees it even going up to 6%. Two officials see rates staying where they're at. And four officials see just a single additional quarter percentage point increase as appropriate. So likely we will end up at the end of the year between that five and a half, five and three quarter percent range. So that's where we're at with that. Now that we know that, let's go into story number two, which is that a New Jersey jury found that a former Starbucks

regional director was wrongfully terminated from Starbucks for being white and awarded her $25.6 million. Now you might be wondering, how did the jury come up with that number? There's no way that that's lost income, right? Well, yeah, you're right. Only $600,000 of that was compensatory. So compensatory damages are meant to compensate the plaintiff. So that could be lost wages, that could be pain and suffering, that could be humiliation. It's meant to compensate. The rest of that, so $25 million of that, was punitive, which is meant to punish. Because of that, and we'll talk about why in a little bit, but because that's the way the damages broke down, she's likely only going to walk away from this lawsuit with about $3 million. And again, I'll explain why towards

the end of this, but let's talk about what the basis for the suit was. So this woman, her name was Shannon Phillips. She worked with Starbucks for about 13 years. She was promoted to the regional director position in 2011. And in that position, she managed over 100 Starbucks locations in the areas of Philadelphia, South Jersey, Delaware, and parts of Maryland. In 2018, so about seven years after she was promoted, there was an incident in Philadelphia that made the news, to say the least, but also resulted in her firing, according to her. So let's talk about what that 2018 incident was. Two African-American men, Dante Robinson and Rashawn Nelson, walk into Starbucks. They asked to use the bathroom, but they were told that the bathroom was only for paying customers. So they sit down at a table,

they're talking, minding their own business. They hadn't ordered anything yet. They were just sitting there talking. Well, the Starbucks employees asked them to leave because they weren't ordering anything and seemingly were there for no purpose. But these men told the employees that they were waiting on a business associate and they weren't leaving. In response to that, the store manager calls the police and has them escorted out of the store in handcuffs. Although the men weren't charged with a crime, the public and Starbucks' management and higher-ups were very displeased with the situation. It was what one might call a major PR crisis for the company, and it resulted in Starbucks actually taking several steps to manage the situation. So after this incident, there were protests in the Strait

of Philadelphia. Starbucks' CEO issued an apology calling the arrest reprehensible. Starbucks actually had to reach a confidential settlement with the two men, which not only included a monetary amount, but also gave them an opportunity to attend Arizona State University and complete their undergraduate degrees. Starbucks also closed 8,000 of its company-owned stores for one afternoon to educate its employees about racial bias. Starbucks also changed some of its store policies, like allowing bathroom use for non-paying customers. And it also seemingly fired Shannon Phillips, who is the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

But how does Phillips play into all of this? Because Phillips actually wasn't there on the day that this incident happened. Following the incident, one of the district managers notified Phillips about the incident. Phillips had two district managers under her. One was white, one was black. And this is important because the case is based on racial bias and discrimination. So when you read through the complaint, which I do have linked on jordanismylawyer.com, you will see that for each individual that is described or named in the complaint, their race is also included next to their name. So Phillips learns about this incident from one of the

district managers under her, the black district manager under her, and she notifies the vice president of operations, which is who she reported to. The vice president of operations is also black. In the aftermath of all of this, you know, following this incident, Phillips was responsible for a multitude of things. These things ranged from ensuring the safety of Starbucks employees and customers during the protests, formulating plans of support for Starbucks, addressing community concerns, figuring out next steps. Effectively, she was handling crisis management. So a few weeks after the incident, the vice president of operations told Phillips to take the weekend off because she wanted to speak to employees without Phillips

being present. A few days after that, Phillips is called into a meeting with the vice president of operations, the partner resources director, and the vice president of partner resources. And Phillips was told in this meeting to set up a meeting with one of her district managers. So remember I said she had a white district manager under her and a black district manager under her. She was told to set up a meeting with the white district manager the following morning and place him on suspension because there had been allegations of race discrimination against him. Phillips, though, responded to this telling these higher-ups that she wasn't going to suspend him.

She said she had never observed any race discriminatory comments or conduct from him, and she went on to explain that he was a 15-year employee of the company, and on top of that, he had volunteered every week with this organization in Philadelphia that primarily served young African-American kids. So to her, to Phillips, she was like, he's not doing anything discriminatory. If anything, he's actually advocating for the African-American community. And in response to Phillips's rebuttal, there was a conversation about how non-white salaried managers at Starbucks were being paid less than white salaried managers. And the higher-ups were insinuating that the district manager that they wanted suspended was the reason for this, and so he must be racist.

To which Phillips responded that the district manager doesn't actually have any input on employee salaries and that the process in determining employee salaries is actually that when an applicant is approved for a position, their resume is sent to partner resources and they determine the salary based on each individual resume. The district manager has nothing to do with it. So the conversation continues between the higher ups and Phillips about this district manager's potential suspension. And Phillips ultimately says, I'm not doing it. And the next day, Phillips is told to come to a meeting ready to negotiate her separation package because she was being let go. When Phillips asked why she was being

terminated, despite her exceptional performance that had shown through in all of her performance reviews, the reason she was given was, quote, the situation is not recoverable, end quote. So Phillips files this lawsuit, and she alleges that she was fired for being white, and that her race was a motivating, if not determinative factor in her termination. She stated in the complaint that Starbucks, quote, took steps to punish white employees who had not been involved in the arrests, but who worked in and around the city of Philadelphia in an effort to convince the community that it had properly responded to the incident. And the lawsuit was

brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which protects employees from discrimination. It was also brought under Section 1981, which is part of the U.S. Code, and that establishes that certain rights are guaranteed and protected against non-government discrimination. And finally, the lawsuit was brought under a specific New Jersey law that protects against discrimination in the workplace. Starbucks defended their position by saying that she was actually fired due to a lack of leadership and that senior leaders and members of the partner resources division had observed Phillips demonstrate a, quote, complete absence of leadership during the crisis. So this lawsuit was filed in 2019. Despite it being filed in 2019, the trial just started about two weeks ago, and the trial lasted

six days. The jury's verdict was unanimous. Now, although the jury awarded $25 million in punitive damages, the judge is going to reduce this number in accordance with New Jersey law. So a jury is allowed to award whatever amount they want. But in some states, there are statutory caps on punitive damages. Not all states, but in some states. We saw this in the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trial. They also had a cap on punitive damages there. I'm blanking on exactly what it was, but some states have caps. Now, you might be wondering, why would a jury award above this cap? Well, juries aren't allowed to know.

They're not allowed to be notified of the cap per state law. So if they're in the legal field and they know that a state has a cap, that's one thing. But if they're unaware, they're not allowed to be notified that a state has a cap. So they're going to award whatever they want, and then it's up to the judge to reduce that award. So in this case, New Jersey caps punitive damages at either five times the amount of compensatory damages or 350,000, whichever is greater. Now, obviously, in this case, the former is greater, right? Which means that damages are going to be capped at roughly $3 million because compensatory damages were 600,000. You multiply that by five and you get 3 million. In order for her to have gotten the full $25 million punitive damages

award, the jury would have had to award her $5 million in compensatory damages, right? Because five times five would have been 25. Now, assuming on top of that, that there was a contingency fee agreement in place, which means that an attorney takes on a case for free and then says, depending on, you know, if we win, I take a percentage of what we win. If they had that kind of agreement, it could vary, obviously. But the max that she would have to pay her attorneys under New Jersey court rules is a little over $800,000. She's going to walk away with anywhere from $2.8 to $3 million, depending on her arrangement, because she'll get $3.6 from the court,

because you get $3 million in punitive, $600 in compensatory, and then deduct roughly $800,000 from that number. And that's ultimately what she's going to walk away with herself. We don't often hear about politicians from either side of the aisle come together to propose legislation. So when we do, it feels quite refreshing. In this case, two U.S. senators, one Democrat and one Republican, introduced a piece of legislation this week called No Section 230 Immunity for AI Act. And what this piece of legislation would do, what it would allow AI platforms to be sued for spreading harmful and fictitious material. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, also called Section 230 in short, currently gives social media platforms and all other interactive computer services immunity for content posted by its users. And the logic there is that

social media platforms or interactive computer services can't be treated as the publisher or speaker of information posted by its users. But what this bill would do is specifically state in Section 230 that Section 230 does not apply to AI platforms. And how would it do that? It would simply add a clause to Section 230 that says exactly that. So the piece of legislation is only two pages. It's a very quick read. You can find it on jordanismylawyer.com. And it really just says that Section 230 is not meant to prevent any claims or charges, meaning civil or criminal liability, against an interactive computer service provider if the underlying issue involves the use of generative AI. Now, the law defines generative AI as an artificial intelligence system capable of generating text, video, images, audio, or other

media based on prompts provided by a person. One of the triggers for this legislation was actually two recent cases out of the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court upheld the immunity of social media companies under Section 230. YouTube alleging that Google was actually partly liable for the terrorist attack because they aided and abetted and conspired with ISIS by allowing ISIS to post on its platform. The other lawsuit was against Twitter. And in that lawsuit, American relatives of a Jordanian man who was killed in a 2017 New Year's attack in an Istanbul nightclub sued Twitter for again aiding and abetting the Islamic State by failing to police the platform for the group's posts. But in both cases, the Supreme Court said, no, no, no, no, no. Merely transmitting information to the platform users is not sufficient to claim that the platforms aided and abetted the attacks. However, in deciding these cases,

neither decision addressed how Section 230 applies to algorithms. And this is kind of a trending issue right now because Section 230 was established before social media platforms really became the giants that we know them as today. It was before algorithms existed. So now that users are being pushed certain content, the question becomes, does that change the scope of Section 230 or should that change the scope of Section 230? Because previously it was just a general idea that social media companies should not be held liable for the content that its users post. But does that change if the social media platforms are pushing certain content to certain people? So rather than running into the same hurdles that we now see with social media

and Section 230 and algorithms and all of that, the senators introduced this law saying that we can't make the same mistakes with generative AI as we did with big tech, and that this is kind of the first step in setting in place safeguards around AI as we enter this new AI era. And just as one last note on this, reforming Section 230 is actually something that has been supported on both sides of the aisle. In fact, both President Biden and former President Trump have called for reforms in order to hold these big social media companies accountable for how their algorithms affect the distribution of content. Now, obviously, this piece of legislation is a little different in that it applies to AI content and not necessarily just social media giants and the

content posted on it, but it is reforming Section 230 nonetheless. So that takes us into our final story, which is a quick rundown of recent Supreme Court decisions. On Thursday, the Supreme Court released three decisions, and we're going to recap each of them. So this is going to be a very short recap. I do include the full opinions on my website if you're interested, but this will kind of give you a general gist of what they were about. The first case is Lac du Flambeau band versus Coughlin. And this was an eight to one decision. Justice Jackson wrote for the majority. Gorsuch was the only justice that dissented. What was this case about? There is this provision of the U.S. bankruptcy

code that strips governmental units of their immunity from lawsuits for purposes of a variety of bankruptcy laws. So in some cases, the government has immunity. In bankruptcy cases, in other instances, they don't have immunity. In that provision that strips their immunity, governmental unit is defined under the law as states, territories, and other foreign or domestic governments, among other things. The question that the Supreme Court had to answer was whether that law is sufficiently clear to strip the Native American tribe of its sovereign immunity. And what the court said is yes, the law strips the Native American tribe of its sovereign immunity under the bankruptcy code. Justice Gorsuch, the only justice that dissented, argued that until now there was never a decision out of the Supreme Court that found that Congress intended to repeal tribal sovereign immunity without expressly mentioning Indian tribes somewhere in the statute. So what he says is this is the first case of its kind where in the statute, there's no talk of tribal sovereign immunity, yet here we are deciding

whether or not tribal sovereign immunity is repealed. So that was the first case. The second case was Holland versus Brackeen. It was a seven to two decision. Justice Barrett wrote for the majority. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito dissented. And this case was challenging the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act. And the Indian Child Welfare Act was enacted by Congress back in 1978 to keep Native American children with their families by governing state court adoption and foster care proceedings. So back in 1978, Congress found that both public and private entities had taken hundreds of thousands of Native American children from their homes, sometimes by force, other times

not. And they placed these children in institutions or with other families that had no tribal connections. So among other things, the Indian Child Welfare Act established minimum standards for the removal of Native American children from their families and also created a preference that Native American children that are removed from their families be placed with extended family members or in native foster homes. And so this lawsuit was challenging the act. And there were various challenges. So the first challenge was that Congress lacks the authority to enact the Indian Child Welfare Act. The second challenge was that several of the act's requirements violate the anti-commandeering principle of the 10th Amendment. For those who

are unfamiliar, what the anti-commandeering principle says is that powers that aren't specifically delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved for the states or to the people. This is, of course, assuming that the Constitution doesn't prohibit that either. But it's just saying if the United States isn't delegated certain powers by the Constitution, those powers are for the states. So they're saying that this act was a violation of that principle. The third challenge was that the act employs racial classifications that unlawfully hinder non-Indian families from fostering or adopting Indian children. In other words, non-Indian families are discriminated against when it comes to fostering or adopting Indian children. And the last challenge was that one provision

of the act in particular, a provision that allows tribes to alter the prioritization order, which is exactly what it sounds like. So the priority in which the kids go through the foster or adoption system, so whether they go to extended family, which family members, and then where they go from there violates the non-delegation doctrine. And what the non-delegation doctrine says is that Congress can't delegate its powers to other entities.

So in this case, what the challenge is, is that by giving the tribes the power to alter the prioritization order, Congress is actually delegating its own powers to the tribes the power to alter the prioritization order, Congress is actually delegating its own powers to the tribes. Now, the court rejected all of these challenges and upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act and all of its provisions. It rejected some of the challenges because the court just said that they had no merit, and it rejected other challenges because the court said that the plaintiffs had no grounds to challenge it in the first place, which is also called lack of standing.

This is considered a win for the Native American tribes. The third and final case that the Supreme Court released its decision on was Smith versus United States. This was a unanimous decision. Justice Alito wrote it for the court and it surrounds criminal prosecutions. And the question for the court was, if a defendant is tried by a jury in the wrong jurisdiction, what is the proper remedy? Smith, the defendant in the original suit, argued that the defendant can't be tried again. Whereas the United States argued that he can be tried again, he just has to be tried elsewhere in the right jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the United States unanimously holding that the Constitution permits a retrial of a defendant following a jury trial in an improper venue. Interestingly enough,

there was some talk that this case was the reason that the DOJ ultimately filed Trump's recent charges in Florida and not in D.C., almost as a precautionary measure, because in the case that the Supreme Court ruled the opposite way and held that a defendant couldn't be tried again if tried in the wrong venue, then the DOJ would have been out of luck, right? If they would have tried Trump in D.C., but then it was determined that was the wrong venue, then they wouldn't have been able to try him again. But it's kind of a moot point at this point because the Supreme Court said that when a defendant is tried in the wrong jurisdiction, they can be tried again in the right jurisdiction.

So it wouldn't have been an issue. But again, just as a precautionary measure, there was some talk that that's why the DOJ filed Trump's charges in Florida and not D.C. So more decisions are being released by the Supreme Court on Friday, the day that this episode goes live. So you will want to subscribe to my weekly newsletter, which goes out on Saturday. That's where I will recap the rest of the decisions. So again, you can do that at jordanismylawyer.com slash subscribe. With the three decisions that were released on Thursday, that means the Supreme Court is left with 20 cases to decide. Assuming that three or four more will be released on Friday, that would mean that there are 16 or 17 left to decide in the next two weeks. Some of the

more controversial cases that are still in the air include the two cases challenging President Biden's loan forgiveness program, a case challenging affirmative action, and a case that will determine whether a Colorado business owner can choose to not provide her business services to members of the LGBTQ community for religious reasons. That concludes this episode. Don't forget to leave me a review. Please remember to subscribe to the newsletter and please share my show with the ones that

you love. I will talk to you next week.