So what you're saying is, we COULD have clean desalination plants if it weren't for the profiteers cutting corners on them like they do on everything else?

Just like nuclear power, the problem isn't the tech. The problem is human greed.

Well, later in the second paragraph there may be a homage: "He pulled out his phone and blogged the event, moving his stiff thumbs (for he was high on a mountain and the air was as cold as it was clear) as fast as he could to secure the claim to himself."

Really? It is? Seriously, do explain how giving preferential treatment to a religious establishment is not a constitutional violation of the First Amendment...

Indeed, and further, I'm trying to understand how "religious and talk stations are exempt" is supposed to be reconciled with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". E.g. per the majority decision by the Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education (1947):

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.

Seriously, how does a specific exemption for religious stations pass Constitutional muster? How are "Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)" not in violation of their oath of office by introducing this bill?

"legal contract between God and them"

There is no such thing. Legal contracts are instruments enforceable via secular government; in the event of a breach, just how is it do you plan to compel the Almighty to appear before the court, let alone execute any punitive measures?

Please do not conflate spiritual activities performed by individuals with secular activities performed by businesses.

No, Im asking why there is a double standard whereby you can "ethically" refuse to patronize a business whose beliefs you disagree with, but they cannot ethically refuse to service you.

You are again conflating individuals with businesses. There is no double standard. A business has no beliefs to exercise because it is a legal fiction, an abstraction given existence by the state rather than by the Almighty. (unless you're claiming that businesses have souls? that they can go to heaven?)

And before you say, "what if the staff personally wish to refuse service", I point out that what they do in their own time is their decision. The state is not forcing them to work for the business. If they want to only make wedding cakes for straights, then they can quit and do that voluntarily without invoking the aegis of government.

Put bluntly, if you kick someone out of your commercial establishment solely because you disagree with their spiritual choices, you are violating their civil rights.

Thankyou for the serious reply.

It will undoubtedly vary between person to person, but for me? The moment it became painfully obvious that Congress was forsworn was when the Senate voted 98-1 for a "Patriot" bill they hadn't even read.

Key allies? You mean 51st states.

When the US government placed Realpolitik above its Constitutional principles, "ally" ceased to mean "friend".

So keep in mind that Snowden didn't screw America's friends; the US government did that much earlier and what's left of it hasn't stopped yet.

Serious question: what's the practical difference between a communist country in which the state owns everything and a capitalist country in which the company owns everything?

My point is that "free exercise" cuts both ways. You say you should be free not to sell cakes to gays. Gays say they should be free to buy cakes from any cake shop. You want Congress to pass a law that says someone's freedom is more important than someone else's freedom. You want a class system. Congress is constitutionally forbidden to do that, and with good reasons.

The laws of the United States are (supposed to be) founded firmly on a strong and high wall of separation between the Church and the State. If you want to do _business_ in the United States, you're (supposed) to do it with everyone equal under the law.

Otherwise you end up with your temple full of money changers.

"force a private individual"

What private individual?

When you're at home, you're a private individual. When you're at work, you're a business representative. If you start a business, and you put up a sign out the front that says "Jhon's Cake Shop", and the shop pays its dues as "Jhon's Cake Shop", and the bank account is in the name of "Jhon's Cake Shop", then when some random stranger walks in to buy a cake, they're not asking you to make them a cake, they're asking "Jhon's Cake Shop" to make them a cake.

You don't get to eat your cake and keep it too.

A group of people walk into a cake shop. One is Jewish. One is Homosexual. One is Colored. One is You.

The United States Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Per the Declaration and the Constitution, these people are Equal before the Law.

If making a cake is an activity performed as part of a publicly-recognized business conducted under the protection of the laws of the land, then the owner must accept all the laws of the land, not just the ones that can be used to serve their selfish interests and fears.

Some say it should be "left up to the business owner". I say that's passive-aggressive douche-baggery by hypocrites who can't admit to their own bigotry.

And if you don't like it, the existence of the First Amendment means that you can speak, assemble and petition for abolishing the First Amendment. I hope you can appreciate the irony.

Third option: tell the person asking loaded questions to get lost. Assisting in the publishing of a written statement one knows to be false or malicious is already covered by defamation laws.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

A solution would then be to have the molten salt system (or whatever thermal energy storage system is most practical) fed power from/to multiple houses.

Except for the time you spent chasing the money back and dealing with all the crap the ID theft caused. And time is money, as any lawyer who's ever billed for his time could tell you.