People like to trot this out, but it's complete bullshit. The law requires no such thing.

The shareholders, on the other hand, very well might.

That Japanese government may very well have the same issues with Bitcoin that the US government does. In fact, mast governments will, because they are looking for ways to control and tax it.

So, thanks for the "simile face", but just because Japan is not the US does not mean everything is hunky dory with Bitcoin in Japan.

Remember, though, the IRS considers Bitcoin "property" not "money".

guarantee. Statistically.

On the other hand, most users don't use random strings for passwords.

It's not about "fair wage" in most cases, it's about opportunity to work on projects these talented engineers want to work on.

In most cases, the money is something but not the big draw.

These folks bail from Google to Apple, Apple to Google, to work on stuff they want to work on.

Google and Apple (and Intel) are not in a wage fight, they all pay very well.

homophobia
noun
noun: homophobia
1.
an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

Describe how disliking an entire group of people that you don't know is rational.

And what rights are homosexuals asking for that will only apply to them? The way I hear it, they want the same rights that other people have now.

I'm sorry, who is asking for special rights and privileges that only they should have? And what are they asking for that will only apply to them and no one else? It sounds like you're describing religious people wanting special treatment because they are religious.

No, I read that you have major problems when the federal government "compels" a "private individual" to "violate their religious beliefs." That's not what the case is about, the case is about whether the government can require a corporation to provide insurance that covers contraception. See how I stated that without saying anything about violating religious beliefs, and how I accurately described it as a corporation and not a private individual? It's not like the government is forcing everyone to take contraception, is it? Not that having everyone on contraception would be a terrible thing.

That is speculation. It's no more likely to go up then it is likely to go down.

The fact that the FDA regulates the devices in question, and that they are not covered by abortion laws and regulations, indicates that those medications and devices are not considered to constitute abortion. It doesn't really matter what the employer thinks they do.

When a corporation can be murdered, or jailed for murder, then I'll agree that a corporation is a person.

I know that, I am simply aware of the rhetoric. This is an issue of companies supplying insurance to their employees. But the way people describe it, the evil federal government is compelling upon pain of very nasty things that private individuals must violate all of their most closely held and sacred religious beliefs. The discussion could do without the rhetoric. The question is whether an employer has to provide insurance that covers medication that, for whatever reason, the employer does not want to pay for. Religion has zero basis on the actual issue. It doesn't matter why they don't want to pay for it. Saying it's a religious belief does not automatically elevate it up to some mythical righteous level.

Religion has a special place in my heart. In general, my opinion of an individual is inversely proportional to how religious they are (this doesn't apply to every religion, only the ones who have earned it). I wasn't born this way though, this feature of me has been very carefully molded and crafted by many groups and politicians over the last 3 or 4 decades. I see what happens in the name of religion, and I strongly oppose it. Religion, like sex, should happen behind closed doors and out of the sight and reach of the government. The inverse is true as well. Government should happen out of the sight and reach of religion.

I absolutely believe in the golden rule. Why do you think I have such a negative opinion about religion?

Are you asking me about tax law? I'm not the person to ask. I don't think "defacto relationship" is even a legal thing. Maybe you're thinking about a common law marriage.

Look up my comments on polygamy or polyandry in this very thread. There is zero reason why 4 people should not be allowed to marry each other. The only justification I can think of for having a law like that is because it would be a pain in the ass for the IRS, which in my opinion is not a valid reason.

Abusing children and treating women, or any other person, like slaves is already illegal. There doesn't need to be an additional law to try and make something else illegal in order to prevent what is already illegal. That's like here in Arizona where we have a law that says that something like 6 or more unrelated women cannot live in the same house, because of prostitution. That law doesn't need to be there, prostitution is already illegal. There's no reason to outlaw 6 women living together, and there's no reason to outlaw plural marriage.

No, I'm saying exactly the opposite actually.

I said a "simple" difference of opinion. This is a difference of opinion, but not a simple one. It sounds like the person I was responding to was trying to break down what I said into the smallest possible unit, if I would refuse to work with anyone who I disagreed with on any minor issue.

I'm not sure if it's a majority, but I do have a fundamental problem with anyone who puts their own religious freedom in front of anyone else's rights.

I am.

I've considered it. I have a plan that entails just that.

That is no longer true.