Comment Re:Deities of Native Hawaiian mythology .. (Score 1) 228
Pretty impressive for a transgendered goddess.
Pretty impressive for a transgendered goddess.
Do you know the key strategic weakness of the human race? The dead outnumber the living. - Missy
Yeah, but I don't remember them complaining when they diverted the Lava to miss villages using modern technology.
Isn't that thwarting the will of Pele?
Kinda kills the argument for offending the gods.
Vae Victis.
Soylent Green... it is MADE OF PEOPLE!
If people had heard it enough they would not have bothered to write the original article about a Consumer Group "bemoaning" the practice.
OF COURSE they are doing that, that is the whole point of providing a free product, to monetize you. Don't like it? Don't use it.
then you are the product.
No, we are just saying it is like the Oscars now.
8.6% registered Republicans in her district, city of San Fran. Dems could run a Dead Yellow Dog and it would still win.
Republicans could run anyone you care to name and lose.
They can't win with 30% of the registered voters, not even if they dug up Ronald Reagan.
Pelosi district is San Francisco. Registration is 8.6% Republican.
Democrats could run anyone and they will win. The Green candidate is a more viable candidate.
State is 30% Republican overall, so there is a slim-but-unlikely chance of getting a Statewide Republican candidate to win.
The article does not address or even mention the section about compelling interest of the government.
8(b)(1) if you even care.
The government just has to show compelling interest and that the interest is the least limiting.
"Racism" is pretty clearly a compelling government interest. And in the infamous "Wedding" examples, not being sued for refusing to take part in a private ceremony seems a pretty reasonable action.
The government, ACA included, should not be compelling actions, but preventing certain actions.
I don't see how any valid law could or should be used to force someone to participate in something that has no compelling government interest.
Refusing to deliver a cake, or taking photos, or presiding over a private marriage is not compelling.
Refusing to serve someone at a public accommodation is a compelling interest.
The line is drawn by the courts. You don't get automatic protection, you have to go to court to get it.
If the state can show compelling interest, then they are not protected.
These laws don't give you the right to say "We don't serve your kind here." at a public accommodation. That would be a violation of the law. You are not exempt from complying with laws where the government has a compelling interest.
What is somewhat amusing is that when the Federal law that provides the same protection as these State laws was passed under Clinton, it was to allow the use of ceremonial drugs in Native American rituals and the Amish to avoid some building codes.
Render unto God what is due God, and render unto Caesar what is due Caesar.
Not exactly separation of church and state, but a recognition that they are not one and the same, and that following the Law (Caesar) is not automatically a sin.
That said, I really don't understand the controversy. Why should someone be forced to participate in a ceremony that is not something they agreed to be part of willingly?
Go somewhere else.
Refusing service at a place of public accommodation is not, nor has ever been, covered by these laws.
The game of life is a game of boomerangs. Our thoughts, deeds and words return to us sooner or later with astounding accuracy.