Actually, they were perfectly fine with baking them a cake. Just not a wedding cake. Their reasons where because their constitutionally protected free exercise of religion and beliefs of that religion prohibited them from participating in a gay wedding.

Here is the problem. We are letting a law override the constitution because you believe the law is better. So what would you think of a law that allows the government to censor what you type on the internet or that allows the government to search you any time they want without cause? I what would your reaction be if a law that said "all judges have to issue a warrant any time any government entity asks for one regardless of the reasons and if you are searched because of it, you cannot complain anywhere at all"?

Where is this in the constitution? I don't think you have even read it or understand what it is. Do they not teach government and civics in high school any more?

What if he sent his interns in regular clothing? If an ordinary person walked in asking for a cake with the words "kill a nig***for baby jesus" on it? What if someone placed an online order for posters that say "sex with kids is great, you should help legalize it so you can try it too- sponsored by your local NAMBLA charter 103"? Would you fill either of those orders?

Wrong. There are several cases recently where the first amendment and religious freedom was ignored and state protections of gays were upheld. As sad as it sounds, this law is meant to avoid that.

Its more than just freedom of association. In many respects, it is freedom of religion too which is supposed to be protected from government interference due to the bar of the first anendment. You don't have to patronize them, but the government should be barred from making themviolate their religious beliefs just like the government is barred from telling CNN it cannot run a story about the president comming in last when people picked their favorite president and names from movies and tv show presidents were listed.

And before anyone chimes in with how it doesn't apply to business, any reading like that would also mean free press and free spech in the first amendment would not apy to businesses either. We already know that is not the case so its a dead argument.

You forgot an important thing. If the airfair covered ghe cost of security, i would only be paying for it when i used it. I would also have the option of not paying which would also decrease the costs by not molesting me and grandma.

I keep seeing people say that and i have to wonder, if they did such a great job, why do they need to fix it. Its like health care and evil HMOs. The government pushed them to drop the cost of Medicare then had to fix that too.

You may not like what was said, but that just means reality sucks.

There been reports of them killing people when they got the wrong address too. Nothing has happened that I know of about this either so I am not too confident anything would be making them think twice on a tip.

What I am confused about is why isn't universal getting the same cut for paid or free streaming? Or if they are, why the fuck do they care who is paying the bill. Free streaming should have adds involved and those adds should pay the same cut to universal as the paid streaming does. Or am I missing something here?

It seems to me that if Universal doesn't like the free streaming, they likely wouldn't like the paid streaming either. Maybe it's the premium version of spotify that allows you to save songs and play lists to your devices to offline listening they have a problem with. But then again, all the got to do is price it correctly and make the same cash for essentially renting music to idiots with too much money.

There likely aren't enough people capable of participating in a plan around stopping paying taxes. Most everyone has their taxes deducted from their pay before they even receive it. I think the income tax system was set up purposely for this effect.

In general, in morality and aesthetics we are not asked to believe against the evidence and reasoning, and I consider religions that want people to believe against the evidence to be anti-scientific and bad.

No one said you have to go against the evidence to believe the world is less than 10,000 years old. I laid out a perfectly easy to understand explanation of how they both could exist- the creation made it look that way. In fact, anything you find in nature would be created to look that way by the creation (or an antagonist like Satan) to anyone who believes in creation. In that environment, the earth and universe appearing to be billions of years old or old would be intentional, the claim it was created that was is just not scientific.

In your example, either you intend to think or do something on a belief that's against the evidence, or you are asking a meaningless question.

Here is your problem. you simply are not paying attention to what was said. The evidence can exist, be completely weighed, just valued differently. It can be the product of the creation just as easily as independent of the creation and science does not and never has showed there can be only one way. It only purports to show the scientific or natural way which is devoid of unscientific claims.

Now I am not asking any questions, I am saying as a statement of fact that science does not address unscientific explanations and unscientific explanations are unscientific not anti science and Unscientific explanations can completely encompass scientific explanations along with it. But it simple is not anti science, it is unscientific.

The second is anti-scientific in that it's a waste of time. It's anti-everything to entertain such a view as anything other than an intellectual curiosity.

what a load of manure. Philosophy exists on many different levels and makes many different claims that are not anti science- just not scientific.

You really do have a problem with this "with us or against us" mentality. Science does not operate that way and the problem is you, not science itself. unscientific does not mean anti science. It never has and never will.

Most of the boards I am familiar with wouldn't allow a full boot if the jumper was enabled to flash. The nice thing was a recovery option where you could rename a bios extension, and it would load it automatically from the FDD. But as far as I know, it would stop the boot process if you left either setting jumped.

Governments create their own laws and rules on enforcing those laws. of course it can be illegal with them doing it specifically.

Try it on your own though, go to a bar and try to talk the people with short haircuts into killing someone for you. I will wait the several years it will likely take for you to tell me how it worked out.

No, I'm just wondering why you have this bizarre viewpoint.

Evidently, you do not understand the viewpoint or for some deep seeded reason cannot allow it to be understood.

The evidence that the Sun came up yesterday is stronger than that it will come up tomorrow. If there is no evidence that the Sun came up yesterday, science simply doesn't work. A scientist looks at experiments in his or her field - and suddenly realizes he or she has no evidence that they ever happened.

Here is the problem, science cannot be used to rule out a non scientific argument. All it can do it present an argument that does not need to be unscientific. Mixing yellow and blue together to make green is scientific, some supernatural being willing something to be the color green is not. All science can say is that there is a natural reason why it is green, not that no supernatural being was involved. In short, science does not disprove religion or religious claims, it can only show they are not needed. The idea that the world is less than 10,000 years old is likely wrong, but science does nothing to prove it is wrong, only that it appears much older.

There is no evidence for the creation of the Universe. There is evidence that the Universe evolved over time. Therefore, believing in any creation significantly after the big bang is believing against the evidence, and is anti-scientific.

FFS, do you even understand what an unscientific argument is? There are parts of life that have nothing to do with science. That does not make it anti science, it only makes it unscientific. Science is not, I REPEAT- NOT a with us or against us field of study.

Maybe I should just allow some other people to explain this to you. It's such a simple concept yet I am failing in getting you to understand it. This is geared more to children than adults, maybe you should start from the beginning and go through the entire thing. It seems you have missed a few things throughout the years.

I agree that feminist have went beyond equality into some I'm special silly reality but this simply is not part of it.

Someone saying nice legs, whistling, and crap is something that should be blown off. However, that object of the cat call should have the ability to retreat if they are not comfortable. Because these apps shared personal information with specific business transactions, that personal information should not be used to remove portions of that retreat. A cab driver giving a wolf whistle is one thing, borderline stalking by repeatedly communicating the same but through other avenues only possible because of that business transaction is completely another.

Look at it this way, if your mom, sister, girlfriend, you neighbor or even yourself dressed as prudish as you think women should, acted like you think they should, and her bank keeps calling her to say he wishes he was her undergarment or messages her to talk about his sexual quirks and keeps asking to meet up- would you think it was appropriate? I would hope not and I would hope you would expect it to stop. Now if the same was walking down the street and people said the same, it would be different if it ended when they walked away.