This is another power grab by the religious right.

You remind me of Bluto Blutarsky when he was ranting about it not being over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, in the movie Animal House. Of course, the Germans didn't bomb Pearl Harbor, and neither is this a power grab by the religious right for the simple reason that it isn't a power grab. A power grab is when one uses political power to force someone else to do something they don't want to do, or force them not to do something that they want to do.

Instead, this is a reaction to a previous power grab by the homosexuals wherein they forced bakers to provide cakes for the marriage of homosexuals. Do you see who is doing the forcing? It's the homosexuals. Do you see who doesn't want to do something? It's the religious right. Do you see what they are being forced to do that they don't want? It's provide cakes for homosexual marriages. So, who has made a power grab? It's the homosexuals.

It is connected to their efforts to restrict sex (through access to contraception, sex education, abortion, etc) and control the lives of Americans in the bedroom.

If, in fact, there is such a connection it's a remote one. The more direct connection is not in the bedroom, but rather in the store front, or the service location. The religious right wants to provide certain products or services and not provide others. Homosexuals have used political power to force a choice on them. Either the religious right can provide cakes to whom they don't want to provide cakes to, or they can quit providing cakes altogether. Neither choice would be what they would prefer to choose if they were free to do so.

But you know what? Every article, every boycott and every protest is pushing them back. Similar bills are stalling or failing. The outrage at actions like these are causing more and more Americans to leave their religion in disgust. The more we drag this bullshit into the light, the more the theocrats feel the heat.

You sound like those salesmen selling multi-level marketing. "Don't you want to get into this opportunity early? Everyone is buying in! Don't be the last one to have a piece of this action!"

~Loyal

"Never mind; he's on a roll."

A free market solution never worked in the Jim Crow south and it wont work now.

A free market solution never worked in the Jim Crow south because a free market solution was never tried in the Jim Crow south. Jim Crow laws refer to a set of laws that governments created and that determined what businesses could and could not do. A free market solution is free because it's free from government intervention. The Jim Crow south was not free from government intervention because government intervened in what businesses could and could not do.

~Loyal

When people are proponents of laws like these I just hope they simply haven't thought about their opinion thoroughly enough. But here is someone who fully knows the ramifications of this opinion and is actually proud of it. I don't meet people like this often, and it is very chilling.

I agree with everything DarkOx said.

I simply couldn't imagine someone walking into a store with a "Whites Only" sign on the door and hear him say "Good for them for sticking up for their convictions." But it is clear that DarkOx is such a person.

I wouldn't say that. Rather--I'm glad that neither the government nor anyone else can force them to take the sign down. It's kind of like saying, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

~Loyal

Nazi Germany was not opposed to religion -- they were very specifically Christian.

Hitler and Nazi Germany were opposed to religion. Hitler's problem was that Germany was, as you so clearly stated, 94% Christian, so they couldn't be seen as being opposed to Christianity. Thus, the quote you found.

~Loyal

Do you believe that business owner should have the legal ability to refuse service to a black/hispanic/asian person, or a woman?...If so, why are you an bigot?

Do you believe that a white person should have the legal ability to refuse to marry (as in, become the spouse of) a black person? If so, why are you a bigot?

~Loyal

(and not very good at it--don't quitcher dayjob)

My post was intended for those who understand satire.

I come down on the side of the GPL for the simple reason that without "freedom zero" the BSD code will be much more vulnerable to, if not inevitably overtaken by, the kind of behavior Theo de Raadt complained about vis-a-vis corporate uptake of OpenSSH.

Freedom zero is needed because of the length and strength of copyright and trade secret (and to some extent, patent). If those were eliminated or severely limited then freedom zero would be superfluous.

See the problem yet?

No, because it's entirely logical for me to tolerate intolerant people--by allowing them to sell cakes only to heterosexuals, for example. But it's contradictory for a logical person to use illogical inferences.

~Loyal

Seriously, I am curious to know how much these wingnuts have thought about the possibility that non-Christians might use this crap against them. Imagine the uproar is a Halal butcher turned away some Catholics, or a Jewish deli turned away some Baptists on religious grounds. Faux News would have an outrage-gasm.

I'm going to assume that you really meant it when you indicated that you want a serious answer, while realizing I'm on very shaky ground making that assumption...yes. I would permit you the ability to deny doctoring me, feeding me, painting my house, or whatever. You could put up a sign saying, "No Christians need apply" and I would grant you had that right. As far as Fox News goes, yes, I expect them to report it, and I expect that's a very good thing.

~Loyal

I think it's very clear that the only way to ensure tolerance is that we have to make people practice toleration. We have to force people to sell things to people they don't want to sell to, lend things to people they don't want to lend to, allow patronage to people that they don't want as patrons, accept donations from people they don't want as doners, and, in general, to let any protected class to have any transaction that they desire. I think it behooves us to make government bureaucracies that enforces tolerance. I think that no intolerant person should be permitted to be on the bureaucracy, because otherwise intolerance will creep in, which will allow intolerant people to do intolerant things. In fact, that's true of all government. No unprotected class should be permitted to hold any office in the legislature, executive, or judiciary. Those people are intolerant, and we can't allow their intolerant beliefs to pass intolerant laws, enforce intolerant acts, or made intolerant decisions. Only the tolerant people should be able to force their views on others. The intolerant people have views that can be dismissed out of hand. Those views shouldn't be allowed a forum in the media, on the internet, or anywhere in public. Only tolerant views are permissible. Tolerant views should be mandatory, and anything not mandatory should be forbidden.

~Loyal

Do you actually have any idea at all what the regulations are for taxis? Here are some of the rules that 'only represent one tiny class':

Here's the deal--no matter how good taxis are, no matter how much benefit they confer, no matter how much some people prefer them, there're some people who prefer Uber, or some other service, to taxis. Some people who have a choice choose Uber instead of choosing taxis. That means, to those people, that Uber is better, to them, than traditional taxis would be, to them. Now, the taxi operators and politicians beholden to them don't like that. They want to remove that option, the option that the people prefer, in order to force them to choose taxis, which is what they don't prefer, or to choose nothing, which they also don't prefer. That being the case, it doesn't matter how good taxis are, it doesn't matter how many benefits that taxi operators and owners can tout. It doesn't matter how many benefits that politicians can tout. It doesn't matter how many benefits that shills on Slashdot can tout. It doesn't matter how many benefits that you, if I haven't already mentioned you, can tout. What matters is what people want and are willing to pay for.

I hope I've cleared that up.

~Loyal

No, Soon was attacked for not disclosing his funding in relevant papers.

No, Soon was attacked for not disclosing his funding in irrelevant papers. Actually, that's not strictly true. Soon was attacked because he opposed the narrative. His funding is just a red herring.

~Loyal

Of course they were. Just like your beliefs. That in itself doesn't help us determine which are true, though.

I'm glad you agree. Now you and I just have to convince MightyMartian.

~Loyal

Well, clearly *SOME* hidden funding has been revealed, as mentioned even in the summary.

No, no hidden funding has been revealed. Soon and three others wrote an unfunded paper. They did the research on their own time, and no one paid them to do it, and no one paid them for it. The publisher required authors to disclose funding for the work being submitted. The work being submitted had no funding, so that's what they disclosed. Greenpeace started digging into the authors' histories and found that Soon had received funding for previous work. They told reporters that Soon should have disclosed funding for previous work as though it had been for this work. The Boston Globe reported that Soon had been accused of non-disclosure. Someone started a petition to get Soon fired based on a mis-characterization of the Boston Globe story. No hidden funding has been revealed, but enough slanders have been spread to instill doubt about the work, which, one presumes, was their intent.

~Loyal

One thing's for sure. If we don't do something about AGW all of those things will come to pass as the effects become more and more evident and people start demanding action.

Perhaps not. Perhaps global warming has a net beneficial effect where fewer people freeze to death in the winter, more land becomes arable in the northern latitudes, and plants produce more foodstuffs and fibers from the increase in carbon dioxide. Or perhaps Mt. Pinatubo will blow throwing particulates into the air dropping world average temperatures by one degree for years.

On the other hand we could just impose a gradually increasing carbon tax* that would require a relatively small bureaucracy to administer and have the effect of making non-carbon energy sources more attractive as time goes on.

A small bureaucracy? Isn't that something like a temporary tax increase? Do you know how many people were employed by the US government to set gasoline prices? That should have been a small bureaucracy, right? Price per gallon? Has to be less than 85 cents? It took 10,000 people to do that. You are one hundred miles further from the refinery? You get to charge two cents more. You sell gasoline in California, using the California formulations? You get ten cents more. You live in Utah, and no one from your state is on the Ways and Means Committee? You get eight cents less.

~Loyal

What "smells like fascism"?

Doom is barreling down on us at an unprecedented rate. We have to turn over huge new powers to government to avoid this doom. Government will create huge new bureaucracies to combat the doom. The huge new bureaucracies will be financed by huge new taxes. The bureaucracies will control huge new swaths of business. Businesses will fund huge new lobbyists. Bureaucracies will create huge new regulations. Huge new regulations and huge new lobbyists will be funded through price increases. Huge new portions of subject populations' income will be devoted to governments, bureaucracies, and business. That smells like fascism.

~Loyal

What are you afraid of? That it will turn out most of the shit people like you believe is bullcrap invented by the Koch Brothers?

I'm afraid that people like you are absolutely certain of what you believe, and that one of the things you believe is that none of your beliefs were influenced by anyone with a motive.

~Loyal