No, no, wrong Jesus. I was talking about Ron Reagan, he is the son of god right?

As far as they're concerned Obama is a brown-skinned foreign socialist who gives away free healthcare.

I think they got him confused with Jesus...

>Your anecdotal fallacy of what an ideal work day provides nothing of value to the conversation

The country of France is an anecdotal ?

Mind you Appartheid was ALSO defended on the grounds of Calvinist Christianity - I should know, it was MY people who came up with that piece of stupid.

>race is not an issue of Christianity for any but a very few loonie

But this is a recent development - it was a major issue for them in the past. Slavery was defended on the grounds of Christianity, as was segregation.
Indeed - I would go so far as to say the only REASON why it isn't a major issue with Christianity today is BECAUSE the civil rights act made it illegal to discriminate in the way most Christians 70years ago thought they were supposed to and the churches eventually adapted.

>There are those who claim to be "bisexual": they'll choose a man sometimes, and a women other times.

Erm no they don't. As a bisexual person let me school you: I don't "choose a man sometimes" and "choose a woman" other times - at ALL times I'm attracted to men and at the same time to women.
Who I choose to sleep with on this occasion is determined by availability, individual attraction and circumstance - but it's not a choice about WHAT I'm attracted to, I am ALWAYS attracted to BOTH.
Bisexual is not something distinct from gay or straight - which are not THAT distinct from each other. Sexual orientation is a spectrum and nobody is entirely at EITHER end. The closer you are to the middle the more bisexual you will identify.

> That ability to change indicates a choice

No it doesn't, you have no evidence to back that up and the testimony of most people who make such changes do not support your assertion: the vast majority would say they were lying before that point, usually out of fear of oppression.
Even if you could factor those out - the remaining few may not indicate a choice at all - you yourself gave one reason why not: hormone changes.
Sexual orientation is a physical attribute of our bodies (including our brains) - like all other physical attributes it can change over time - but that doesn't constitute a "choice" anymore than you CHOOSE to have your hair turn gray or your scalp go bald when you get older.

Now imagine this little scenario:
I own a dingleberryjuice bar in California, so I need a regular supply of dingleberries to squeeze for juice.
I am currently getting these imported but I hear that a company in Indian is supplying them and might be cheaper, so I send one of my top quality assessors to Indiana to go look at their product and determine if it's suitable for our needs.
He gets there on his business trip but he can't find anywhere to stay because every hotel is refusing him a room for being gay...

Interstate commerce just got fucked over by this law.

Now this scenario is interesting because if you replace "gay" with "black" you have EXACTLY the scenario that LBJ's administration sketched before the supreme court when the civil rights act was challenged on exactly the same grounds you are using to defend this.

And if it messes with interstate commerce - it's outside the scope of states rights and INSIDE the scope of federal law.

The US would of course have to block the road where it hits NYC to prevent trade with them... leading to a 13-thousand mile traffic jam ?

>But I also value to the right of people to do as they please, and not be forced to serve anyone they disagree with.

Do you also think they have a right to refuse to serve you if you are black ? How about if you're Native American ? Maybe if you're Irish ?
No, your freedom ends where other's freedom begins - and your right to hate gays ENDS where their right to shop at any business they choose to begins.

Wait, who were you responding to ?
I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me or being a butthurt libertarian ?

Sorry, maybe it's the lack of tone in text but I honestly can't tell which side of this you are on...

Possibly because Roddenberry was dead ?

> I was a Republican until the core Republican party went batsh*t crazy.

One down... only all the rest to go...

Which is about as logical as saying "fire can burn firemen too so we better ban firefighting".

You're right of course, but the jury is still out on warp drives. NASA has an entire team researching them now. Ever since Alcubierre showed it was theoretically possible (and later physicists significantly refined the theory) it moved from pure science fiction into bona-fide science. Whether or when it can move to ENGINEERING is uncertain -but clearly at least some good scientists and engineers are willing to bet quite a significant budget on sooner over later.

And there is no doubt it was Star Trek that inspired the actual science here. Alcubierre wrote William Shatner an e-mail to thank him for Star Trek and openly stated that he it was seeing the idea in Star Trek that inspired him to do the research and work out if it could be done for real.

And for the record - I never even claimed Obama WAS somebody who wished to build a brand rather than appease a donor - the GP claimed that, I never did.