What if I think he's a despicable traitor who just happened--in the course of his treasonous endeavors--to shed light on the NSA's probably extralegal practices.

But which practices didn't *really* surprise anyone.

And they'll slurp gcc into systemd too.

Is that where we're headed?

George Costanza: [Soup Nazi gives him a look] Medium turkey chili.
[instantly moves to the cashier]
Jerry Seinfeld: Medium crab bisque.
George Costanza: [looks in his bag and notices no bread in it] I didn't get any bread.
Jerry Seinfeld: Just forget it. Let it go.
George Costanza: Um, excuse me, I - I think you forgot my bread.
Soup Nazi: Bread, $2 extra.
George Costanza: $2? But everyone in front of me got free bread.
Soup Nazi: You want bread?
George Costanza: Yes, please.
Soup Nazi: $3!
George Costanza: What?
Soup Nazi: NO SOUP FOR YOU!

Soup Nazi: What is this? You're kissing in my line? NOBODY KISSES IN MY LINE!
Sheila: I can kiss anywhere I want to.
Soup Nazi: You just cost yourself a soup!

Elaine Benes: Um... you know what? Has anyone ever told you you look exactly like Al Pacino? You know, "Scent Of A Woman." Who-ah! Who-ah!
Soup Nazi: Very good. Very good.
Elaine Benes: Well, I...
Soup Nazi: You know something?
Elaine Benes: Hmmm?
Soup Nazi: NO SOUP FOR YOU!
Elaine Benes: What?
Soup Nazi: COME BACK ONE YEAR! NEXT!

Agree with all of that.

Disagree with "Should a gay man be forced to take pictures of a straight wedding. Yes."
Disagree with "Should a Jewish man be forced to take pictures of a German Octoberfest wedding? Yes."

Could a devoutly Christian photographer ask her potential wedding clients "Have you engaged in premarital sex?" and then refuse to provide her services for their wedding if the answer in the affirmative?

If so, is she discriminating against any protected class (or class people wish was a protected class--LGBT not protected class everywhere)? What class might that be?

Or is she merely exercising her discretion in a fashion similar to--but for different reasons than--she might refuse to participate in a Nazi-themed wedding. And if refusing to participate in the Nazi-themed wedding is a fair refusal (and a right I would argue she surely ought to be able to exercise). After all, the people chose to have premarital sex, just as the Nazi-lovers (Nazi loving lovers?) chose to be Nazi-lovers. The only difference is her thought process in arriving at her decision to refuse service.

I agree it's bad form to discriminate against gays or black or any for simply being gay or black. OTOH, I'm pretty fine with businesses refusing service to Nazis, KKK, vegans, Greenpeace members, Westboro Baptist Church members, drunks, people with screaming kids,...

The problem is crafting a law that allows refusing service for *some* approved reasons (Nazis) while prohibiting it for *some* other reasons (gay). And the real kicker is who gets to decide which reasons go into which pile. I'm pretty certain that my list of approved reasons for refusing service (or not being allowed to refuse service) are different from yours.

A related problem is that the law must be carefully crafted so that false positives are not commonplace. E.g., if is OK by law to refuse service to someone who appears to be intoxicated, I ought not to get sued for racial discrimination for refusing service to a blitzed-out drunk who happens to be black.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Right or wrong, LGTB is not in there. Nor is LGBTQIA. And certainly not LGBTTQQIIAA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transexual, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Intergender, Asexual, & Allies).

Nor, for that matter, are fat, tall, short, ugly, smelly, smoker, tattooed, pierced, a protected class under CRA of 1864.

Just because I don't tolerate something does not mean I think that a law prohibiting that something is a good idea. On several occasions I have asked people (white people, and I'm white) to stop using the N word in my presence. But a law prohibiting that would be a violation of their (idiotic & racist) free speech and i would be against it.

So call him a bigot and give him a bad Yelp review, then find a photographer who is a better person.

Gay photographer refuses to take pictures at a straight wedding at Westboro Baptist Church.
Jewish photographer refuses to take pictures at a Nazi-themed wedding.
Black photographer refuses to take pictures at a KKK wedding.
Devout Christian photographer refuses to take pictures at a wedding at Westboro Baptist Church because they think that WBC's teachings are not very Christian?

Different sides of the same coin. I think most people would find these all very valid reasons to refuse service. And any law that allows these photographers to refuse service but forces the former photographer to comply is misguided at best.

Rationally, either no one can ever deny service to anyone for any reason, or everyone can deny service to anyone for any reason. In between is the road to arbitrary and oftentimes capricious decisions about popular vs unpopular reasons.

A reminder about their password requirements.

I cannot begin to count the number of times I've had to hit "Forgot my password" simply because they do not remind me up fron that my password must have special character in it. For websites that do not have my personal information and especially not financial (blog sites, sport sites) I tend to use a common password so I don't have to remember different passwords. Again, completely different from any important password and used only for essentially throwaway sites.

But some sites require at least digit, others at least one Capital letter (or at least one lowercase), others at least one special character, others some combination.

The throwaway password usually meets these by virtue of the way it is constructed, but not always. Sometimes it has to be doubled to meet a length requirement, for example. But while they tell you this when you create the password, they never seem to remind you when you later have to enter your password.

Where is there there a jurisdiction where libertarians have a majority of legislatures needed to enact these laws?

of public safety laws.

Which for "progressives" often appears to mean "he got more than me! it's not fair!"

Ronaldo makes $80M per year kicking a ball around a field. I can kick a ball around a field, why am I not paid what he is paid?

Nancy Pelosi once said "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance." I *really* want to be a professional basketball player, it's my life-long dream. Alas, I am a meager 5' 10" and have a shooting percentage measured in single-digits. But by Nancy's notions, I should not be denied my dream just so I can have health-care (and presumably lots of other things).

It may be true that people with wealthy parents will become wealthy via inheritance, but it is far from being the more prevalent manner in which wealth is attained.

Check the real statistics on this. The number of "self-made" millionaires or first-generation millionaires is much much larger than the number of inherited millionaires. Forbes estimates that 70-80% are millionaires are first-generation millionaires who earned an invested their way to wealth, compare to 20% who inherited significant portions of their wealth.

For billionaires...Forbes:

"Over the past 30 years, the origin of the wealth of the richest people in the United States has shifted away from old, inherited money...In 1984, the first year for which we have crunched the numbers, we found that nearly one-fourth of the members of the Forbes 400 inherited their fortunes and weren’t doing anything to grow them...At the same time, only 2.5% were ranked as 10s, or absolute bootstrappers...The trend began to break down in 1994, when we saw an equal number of inherited and self-made billionaires...Already in the 2000s, our data finally showed a greater proportion of self-made billionaires. In 2004, we had 59% of the Forbes 400 having made their own fortune, as opposed to 41% who inherited it...Thus, the most encouraging results come from this year’s Forbes 400. For the first time in our data set, we see the number of self-made billionaires who rose from nothing, and overcame various tough obstacles, outpacing those that just sat on their fortunes. A total of 34 billionaires, or 8.5%, scored as 10s, or more than three times as many as in 1984. The number of 100% inherited fortunes as a percentage of the total fell to 7%, with 28 billionaires in the 1 category, compared to 99 back in 1984.

Forbes defined a 10 as "To qualify as a 10, a member of the Forbes 400 had to have been raised in a poor household, and have endured extreme duress. Oprah Winfrey, who endured sexual abuse, and George Soros, who survived both the Nazi and Communist occupations of Hungary, are great examples." OTOH, a 1 was someone who inherited wealth and has done nothing with it.

"The Hardest Part About a Zombie Apocalypse Will Be Pretending I'm Not Excited'

Or global warming.