A hate crime doesn't prevent you from thinking anything. It prevents you from acting on it and hurting someone based on your own stupidity.
A hate crime isn't when you dont like someone and dont open the door for them going into a building. A hate crime is when you hate someone so much that you go and beat the crap out of them or kill them not because of something they did to you but because of things about themselves that they cannot control. like who their parents are, where they were born, or who they choose to love or associate with.

Its really sad when bigots play the victim. Attacking someone over race, sex, orientation only says something bad about you and not about them.

So what you are saying is that you think it is ok to discriminate against someone based on their ethnicity, race, sex, whatever but you dont do it because those are protected groups and it's against the law? Are you one of those people that thinks that anyone who is not religious and does not have gods law to protect them from going out and murdering and raping people at random?

Seriously? The only reason that you don't discriminate is because it's against the law. And then you wonder why we need these laws.

There are these things called fairness in lending laws. If that smelly dirty bum looking person can prove that they have the financial means to repay that loan, then the bank should and would make a loan to that person. If you are afraid of someone a little smelly, you probably have never come home after working a blue collar job.

You think KKK members would purposely choose to go to a bakery owned by a group they hate and ask them to make a cake depicting that hate?
I think your scenarios is pretty ridiculous.

Once again though. a business that serves the public must serve the public.
The only exception i can think of here might have to do with being asked to create something that depicts something illegal. an illegal act or an illegal organization.

Public business. serves the public.
No exceptions. If you want to make cakes only for your friends, then you can have a private club with membership fees.

YOU CAN NOT HAVE A BUSINESS THAT SERVES THE PUBLIC AND DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC!

They are providing labor to create something for someone elses celebration.
What is the celebration was for a divorce?
Or what if it was for the celebration of someones successful sex change operation?

Only one of these things is specifically mentioned in the bible and it is definitely a no-no in terms of those religions that we all know we are referring to here.
Yet for the idiots who hold these views, its the one cake in this list that they would not think twice before making.

Sure, someone is celebrating. But the baker isn't celebrating anything the wedding. they are only celebrating the money the get for doing the job. The baker is celebrating as much as mcdonalds celebrates that they helped me to celebrate my morning poop after feeding me breakfast.

This is basically what the law says. you can create a private club with private members and you can be as discriminatory or exclusive as you want.

If you have a business that serves the public then it must serve the public at large. this means a business that is registered to serve the public cannot discriminate against anyone in the public.

you want to be an asshole and just have a club with your friends that have the same set of panties twisted in the same style of knot in your pants. Have at it.
We can all point at you and laugh when we see you struggling to walk down the street with your mental burdens.

  If you are running a company in the public square that serves the public, then you need to grow up and treat every single individual equally.

Comcast has an obligation to their customer to supply them with the amount of bandwidth that the customer has paid for. Comcast doesnt get to choose what the customer uses that bandwidth for. They are only there to sell that bandwidth. If comcast is unable to supply the bandwidth to the customer that they are contractually required to do so, then they are in breach of contract. If they have oversold their bandwidth capacity then they are at fault.

As a customer, I get the bandwidth that i pay for. I don't care how many other people are using the internet or if they are all watching netflix.

breach of contract.

They don't get to turn around and charge netflix now so that netflix customers can get the bandwidth that they've already paid for.

The reality is the comcast wants the ability to throttle netflix because comcast is a media company and a direct competitor to netflix in that market. Then comcast can both keep customers on their non-online cable service plans as well as creating their own online content offerings and force customers to move to their services when the throttling of netflix and other competitors services are so degraded as to make them unusable.

Not really.
So My ISP has a contract with me that they can deliver stuff to me at a certain speed. If i am only paying for 14.4k then im going to get netflix at 14.4k regardless of what netflix is able to stream at. If my ISP starts to complain that everyone is using netflix and thus using up their entire pipe, then they have oversold their pipe and infrastructure because they have contracts with customers to be able to provide them a consistent bandwidth. They are never required to give you more than you paid for. They also cant charge you more directly or indirectly by arbitrarily making one web site arbitrarily slower until that website pays them a penalty/fee which they turn around and charge me. If I pay for 20Mb bandwidth, then I should be able to get 20Mb down on anything I want to get from the internet as lon gas the website in question is able to serve their content at that speed. If the ISP can't do that then they are guilty of a breach of contract. The contract with their customers. If the ISP can only guarantee less bandwidth to all their users, then they should only offer contracts for that data rate.

It gets more complicated that that sure. There are more people using the internet at certain times so at times the pipe will be more saturated than at other times. In the end, this is a risk that an ISP takes that they will always be able to provide the amount of bandwidth that that have promised at any time regardless of how many or how few people were using it or what website they are using.

Its like overselling tickets on an airplane because you don't think everyone is going to show up. If those people show up, you have to compensate them because you are not able to honor the contract that you signed with them.

Lol.. needed that laugh.
its not that the "evil" republicans are pushing it. it's that republicans finally gave up trying to fight it. Even then, i'm not sure its quite that black and white. My guess that as a compromise to get republicans on board, they made sure there were some pretty big loopholes for their corporate constituents included in the bill.
I guess we will just have to wait and see. The sweet sweet tasty democrats haven't been exactly perfect on net neutrality either. But they have been much better in terms of understanding the consequences of not having it. Maybe that's just because they generally have a distrust of large powerful corporations. Can't imagine why that is :p

wow, I haven't seen so many shills in one place in quite a while. the reason you are being called out isn't because of your position but because you conveniently leave out details which completely invalidate your arguments.

1. secret courts - yes, the original intention was to make sure there was probable cause before the court was to issue a warrant. In reality, even statements by the court indicate that it has been not much more than a rubber stamp. Less that one percent of requests for warrants have actually been denied. The court is not protecting any citizens. It is protecting the impression of process and procedures so that the government cannot be sued for breaking fourth amendment protections.

2. Spying on everyone. - yes, we all know that the NSA director perjured himself when he said that only metadata was being collected. Within weeks, the rest of us learned about prism which collects not only metadata but content itself. The fact that you leave this out means to me that you know your argument is flawed and that you are trying to discount and minimize facts and evidence that has already been publicly disseminated.

blah blah blah. more bullshit about things being legal that in fact were not legal until unconstitutional laws were instituted to make them less illegal. Lets not even get into the fact that when these laws were passed, the senate intelligence committee did not even know about prism and other programs which were meant to "collect all data".

As for phone record metadata, this is the type of information that government and investigators used to need a warrant to get and they needed to request it from the phone company. Now you are implying that a warrant isn't needed because it's public information and therefore there is no expectation of privacy. FUCK YOU! If there is a reason to suspect someone of a crime, then there is cause to get a warrant. If there isn't, then you have no claim to that or any other information.

Blah blah blah. About the NSA and breaking laws. Laws have been created to make what the NSA is doing "legal". That does not in any way mean that it is constitutional. These things are not at all equivalent to how things were in 1979 or even before the patriot act. You are disingenuous to imply that these things are even remotely equivalent. In 1979, the intelligence infrastructure was even remotely set up to monitor the activities of normal American citizens.

Blah blah blah. terrorists use the same networks and such. You know there was a time when the intelligence services needed to actually do real investigative work. They didn't just get to treat everyone like a criminal until one committed a crime.

Freedom isn't free. It's difficult and expensive. Attempting to take away peoples privacy and autonomy to make the jobs at the NSA easier doesn't make us more free. It makes us less free. Being free without the freedom part of it is actually not being free. Even if some government officials are lying to you about how much freedom you actually have.