"So ... Heinlein was writing within the accepted science of his day (no surprise there), which was that the craters of the Moon (there were no others known) were primarily a volcanic phenomenon. "

I'm missing what you are trying to say -- is it that there were no volcanoes on the moon? Ever? If so, I believe you are wrong. Check out volcanic glass recovered by Apollo 17 and more recent papers on fairly RECENT volcanic flows (as early as 100 million years ago).

Besides, by the 1950's, I believe it was generally accepted that lunar craters were primarily (though not exclusively) the result of impacts. I believe a geologist named Gilbert first proposed the strongest argument for this in the 19th century.

I'm unsure how you can say "his science was wrong" about Heinlein. I wouldn't say he "got it right" as he didn't INVENT the idea of lunar volcanism -- but he wrote about using underground caverns in the 1950's in a way being described in the original article.

"homosexuals would have to take additional time/effort to find another bakery."

I think you'll find that most constitutional scholars would argue that does not rise to the legal definition of "harm".

Were they to refuse service based on their sexual orientation, THAT could be argued to be discrimination. To force service that involves producing product that violates their faith would violate the baker's first amendment rights.

Example:

(A) "I will not sell you this generic cake because you are gay" could be strongly argued to be discrimination.

(B) "I will not make you a cake for a gay wedding with two grooms (or brides) on it because it violates the precepts of my faith" could be strongly argued to be correctly exercising their first amendment rights.

"Same difference. The constitution isn't ignored under either wording, because your rights haven't been infringed in the first place."

How can the force of law which absolutely "prohibit(s) the free exercise thereof" their faith be Constitutional?

"You attaching moral values on to the cake is again your own choice."

You say "moral". I say "religious". Don't ignore the constitution.

"How is it forcing when said individual CHOOSE to open a business/choose a profession that might put them in situations where they're exposed to things they religiously object?"

Ever hear the concept of corporate personhood? The concept dates back early in the 19th century (early in our existence as a nation). I believe it applies. Further, sole proprietorships do not give up constitutional rights when choosing to do business.

"then the owner must accept all the laws of the land,"

Agreed.

"... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Your point?

If you force an individual to take part in something to which they have a religious objection how are you not violating the first amendment?

Can I refuse to sell you cake based on race or whatever? No. Can I refuse to sell you a WEDDING cake, decorating it in a way that is counter to my religious beliefs? I believe the answer to that would be and should be YES.

Would *I*? No. I don't think it's a big deal. Either way.

I think it's fine for private individuals to shout "Dont go to this business because they don't like gays". I DON'T think it's OK to use the force of government to force a private individual in to a business contract for any reason.

Two words:

Bus Boycott.

"[they] rationalize injustice by pretending to defend something many of us hold dear,"

Couldn't that be said by BOTH sides of this issue? Wouldn't it be injustice to force a private citizen to enter a private business contract/engagement with another private citizen against their will and against their beliefs?

I believe It's discrimination to not hire/or fire based on sexual orientation. I do not believe that it is discrimination to refuse to take the money and provide services to someone who wants to you to make a cake for their same-sex wedding. Trust me -- the small business bakery market will weed out those who want to miss great business opportunities and/or sales just because they don't want both figures on a cake wearing pants.

"Women and children, first". Do men and elderly have lives that are worth far less on the high-seas?

It's not a matter of what lives are subjectively or objectively worth. Their subjective value is varied and demonstrable -- I'm sorry, but my child's life means more to *ME* than that of some stranger. Their objective value differences are likewise demonstrable -- there's an entire industry based on it. Look up "actuary".

When someone who dies due to an accident, illness or by action and they have lived a full life, how can you not see the additional tragedy of lost potential on the exact same type of death of a child?

Humans are different. We aren't insects. That I need to point that out to you says all kinds of things about you.

That I'm wasting my breath with an AC says all kinds of things about me...

'This "think of X" makes me sick'

Be sick, then.

Attending the funeral of a lost elder: Virtually all the conversations are about OUR loss. "I'll miss him. He was always there for me. He's been in my life since I was born".

Attending the funeral of a lost child: All the conversations are about the child's loss. "He'll never go to college. He'll never have a girl friend. He'll never get married. He'll never be a father".

Think it's sick? Bully for you. You're wrong.

'The bottom line is you are justifying it by casting another person as "lower" or "less""'

Ship goes down, save the children first. Sick? Or common sense? One life isn't worth more or less than any other -- on that we agree. But when talking about loss, we are have very different conversations.

'Invoking "Think of the children" is just as bad here as anywhere else.'

If you can't see the obvious tragic death of a child (with their future robbed from them) having a heavier weight than an 80 y/o great grandmother who's had a wonderful life then I can't help you.

Yes, NOBODY deserved what happened to them -- but as someone who's experienced the death of elder loved ones and children, I can tell you the conversations about loss are quite different at their respective wakes.

Wow. This internets thing is cool.

From Menace:

"Most of the stuff written about Bats' Cave gives a wrong impression. It's the air storage tank for the city, just like all the colonies have - the place where the scavenger pumps, deep down, deliver the air until it's needed. We just happen to be lucky enough to have one big enough to fly in. But it never was built, or anything like that; it's just a big volcanic bubble, two miles across, and if it had broken through, way back when, it would have been a crater."

Same author -- The Menace from Earth (1957).

Not sure if it were "lava tubes" (it's probably been over 30 years since I read that), but the idea of giant caverns being possible due to low gravity + high atm pressure was sure there.

Plus installing LAMP is sounds cooler than installing LAPP.