Sure, I’d make that argument. But she doesn’t want to be in position to have to argue that, does she? I’m not opining on what she should do. I’m just pointing out that an IPK charge is certainly possible in this situation.

Edit: correcting omission of the word “in.”

No; the story is the same. The federal statute criminalizing international parental kidnapping treats custody the same “whether arising by operation of law, court order, or legally binding agreement of the parties.”

OP - do not take legal advice from Reddit. Not even from lawyers on Reddit. They’re often wrong.

On the given facts, OP is not wrong about the possibility of a kidnapping charge. See 18 USC 1204.

Of course, we have no way of predicting whether the father would file a complaint, or whether it would actually lead to an IPK charge, but it’s certainly possible. OP’s mention of kidnapping suggests to me that it has come up as a topic and she is wise to aware of the possibility.

You mean uninhabitable.

If you paid through June 30, but she terminated June 20, she owes you at least that ten days of rent. (She may also owe you the other days between the fire and the termination, if the apartment was not usable.)

Whether she pays or not is a different question. If you’ve tried to discuss it, but she declines to offer a solution, you could try sending her a 93A demand letter setting out exactly what the problem is and what you’re looking for as a resolution.

https://www.mass.gov/consumer-protection-with-the-courts

Some of us don’t really care what Jesus might have thought about, well, anything.

I think people shouldn’t victimize each other. I think this means if someone victimizes a disabled person, it’s reasonable to make them pay for it. I think it is unreasonable to make random unassociated businesses pay for it, because that turns them into the victim.

No, you don’t. I’m talking about people who don’t even try to use the business. They just go around as self-appointed ADA inspectors. They haven’t been victimized. They’re just assholes, rent-seeking.

It’s not that simple. There are people who make careers out of looking for ADA violations and suing. If they really cared about the issue itself, they’d discuss it first and try to get it remedied. Anyone who doesn’t try that is an asshole.

“A business owner could lose their whole livelihood….”

Only if the person with the dog overreacts, like those people who randomly go around suing over ADA compliance even when they have no intention of ever using the business. Being disabled doesn’t mean you have to be an asshole.

Dogs should not be in restaurants. We all love dogs, but they shouldn’t just go everywhere with their owners. Establishment managers should be polite about this, but also firm.

Well I was speaking generally about things one does with kids, but actually the library is right there; the Freedom Trail kicks off at the Common, which is a short stroll; the Science Museum is on the green line; and even the aquarium is easy when you green line to GC and walk a bit. With the shops and Comm Ave and close to Fenway and Beacon Hill and the green line running right through, I think it’s the best place to stay. YMMV.

Back Bay is just as accessible as Downtown, and will feel more welcoming, more family-oriented, and more fun. Back Bay by a mile. April is a wonderful time in Boston, and Back Bay puts you in the heart of the stuff you want to see and do.

If you judge a paper solely by its opinion columnists, you’re listening to too much talk radio. In other words, you’re an idiot.

That’s an easy thing to say, but it’s wrong. Journalism is difficult. It’s also expensive. Declining ad revenues make it very hard for any paper to survive. The Boston Globe remains a real newspaper doing real journalism - the only major daily in Boston doing so, actually.

If you’re interested in pursuing this, one way to ID person might be through the Charlie Card. You’d have to make an official report of the finding, which state law requires anyway. Perhaps go to the MBTA Police.

What lens is that? I’ve never seen Boston from Provincetown. I’m a bit skeptical. (Except maybe from the monument.)

Historically, such methods have been turned against their proponents. One can only hope.

No, that’s a First Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding vaccine requirements precisely because the First Amendment is not absolute. It articulates at least two variously applicable standards for review of a burden on constitutional rights, neatly proving my point, thank you very much.

It’s not an opinion; it’s the law in the United States.

That is not now, and never has been, the law in the United States.

This isn’t persecution. It’s a neutrally-applied reasonable job requirement that does not lend itself to religious accommodation. Religious freedom is powerful right in our system; it is not absolute.

Also, I think you just called me a Nazi. My only response to that is fuck you too.

I don’t, and it’s an ironic comment coming from the person who accused me of evidence-free conclusion drawing.

No First Amendment right is absolute. In this case, because police have lawful authority to detain and confine others in their presence, members of the public cannot simply choose not to interact with police. For that and other reasons, it is the police who must conform themselves to the standards of public safety. There are all sorts of health and fitness standards for the MSP; this should be one of them. I’ll also note that I believe cops who don’t care enough about the public health to take a vaccine are people who shouldn’t be cops anyway.

I mentioned the Christian Scientists. You’re right about the Jehovah’s Witnesses; I forgot them. So I stick with my initial comment edited to include the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’m still going with: fuck you, get another job.

Nice use of giant font. Seriously, though, what’s the religious argument? I’ve never heard one that isn’t “Jesus doesn’t want me taking your lefty medicine.”