Yeah, it is pretty obvious that a realistic scientific explanation about how a computer could rapidly (say months of absorbing language and cultural data from the aliens, while being hand tuned) would be very boring for most TV shows to portray.

I actually appreciate shows that don't bother, like Stargate SG1. Everyone spoke English, with no explanation. Worked for me.

Not according to the cities and states that have elected to raise the wage because they got tired of waiting for it to happen at a federal level.

Do you have any studies that show raising the minimum wage causes higher unemployment? The articles I've found online either show no correlation or show the opposite: raising the base pay puts more money in people's pockets. Restaurants, movies theaters, etc.., the very places that often employ minimum wage workers, are also the places that many minimum wage workers spend disposable income. Basically, the service industry, the vast majority of the minimum wage jobs, is stimulated by a higher minimum wage.

Equal treatment under the law is very much a rights issue.

Consider: only white people get food stamps. Sure, that is "just a benefit, nothing more, nothing less", but it is obviously racist.

At one point in our history, many states forbid black white marriages. And sure, that marriage certificate was "just a benefit", but that situation is obviously one about Civil Rights.

The Polygamy argument is just silly. It is the slippery slope argument that most far right conservatives start with, and it usually ends with them mentioning something about bestiality. However, the slope really doesn't exist. Polygamy has historically been shown to be a bad idea. And one that is nearly always about the exploitation of women. The split second that women get close to equal power in a society, polygamy vanishes. If polygamy is a non-starter, the slope doesn't exist.

Marriage has always been about two people creating a partnership, which creates stability and benefits society. As our society has changed, grown, and matured, we've decided to code into law protections against discrimination. At first, they were obvious ones, like race, religion, etc.. The latest one happens to be sexual orientation. It just takes time for a new civil rights protection to seep into all the aspects of society that people use to inform their worldviews, like churches for instance.

There was a point in time in the US when the majority of people were bad people when it came to equal rights for Black Americans. At what point in time the majority became the minority is up for debate. However, that is precisely the reason why historically civil rights issues are not decided by popular vote.

Many of those employment discrimination laws are based on what society considers to be legitimate factors (race, religion, etc..).

No matter if a belief is based in religion, if it is bigoted, or racist, or illegal, it would not be covered under employment discrimination laws.

I can certainly decide not to hire someone if they are a card carrying member of the KKK, and face no legal challenges. The question here, is whether history will decide that being against marriage equality was bigotry or not. I suspect that history books will look back at this period of time and label people against equal treatment as no different than the people who opposed black/white marriages.

Religions do not get carte blanche protections for their conclusions and actions. There are many religious people who have reached conclusions about things that a jury/judge would not allow. It doesn't matter what system of belief or logic created an idea, if that idea is illegal.

Civil rights have never been a matter of public opinion. See the civil rights movement. That is also not a sign of being non-bigoted. It is more a sign of being ignorant of the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and the history of Civil Rights.

Unequal treatment based on a person's natural attributes (race, orientation, etc..) is pretty close to the definition of bigotry.

See Civil Rights above.

That old saying, "it takes a village to raise a child".... is now being codified into law.

In the case of civil rights / bill of rights stuff, we sure do have a ton of historical law that helps us define what makes something a right. You can basically summarize it, that everyone is allowed to be completely free to do anything... except when it adversely harms another. The whole, "your right to swing your fist ends at the point of my nose" argument.

In that light, it would require Christians to argue how the 'fist' of gay marriage is impacting their nose. Because if you cannot prove you are being harmed, you cannot deny someone a right just for the heck of it.

I don't think his motives should matter. The end result of his actions was supporting unequal treatment of human beings. When the history books re-examine this period 50 years from now, the "Christians just trying to do good by opposing equal rights for gays" will be placed in the same category as those that opposed equal rights for blacks in the 50's and 60's.

Differences of opinion are one thing. Advocating against equal rights is different.

So if you had a choice between going to two restaurants..... One owned by a vocal KKK family, and one owned by a family that was 'more normal'. The blatant racism of the KKK family would be of zero concern to you when deciding where to eat?

It depends on what other types of technology exist alongside those technologies that have automated everything.

For instance, what if programmable nano-bots are a reality 200 years from now. nano-bots that can work at an atomic level. Literally turn dirt into gold, or build you a house, a car, space ship, etc.. they are self-repairing, self-creating, etc..

Then the only thing of value will be raw material. Labor will be meaningless.

I use the self-checkout because it is always way faster than standing in line.

Many States in the US that have chosen to increase minimum wage to ~10USD, which is above average, reported no job losses, and actually an increase in economic activity. As far as I know, there are no studies that show raising minimum wage decreases unemployment. In fact, it is the opposite:

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/raising_minimum_wage_increases_quality_of_life_not_unemployment_20130810
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Stefan-Karlsson/2012/0214/Does-higher-minimum-wage-increase-unemployment
http://consumerist.com/2010/11/01/study-higher-minimum-wage-doesnt-increase-unemployment/

You might see jobs shift around. Like a small retail shop might cut down from 2 workers to 1 worker. But that 1 worker was probably hired by a restaurant, because the restaurant has found they have a lot more business. That restaurant has a lot more business because there are now a lot more workers with a bit more disposable income to spend on take out food.

I should note, that I realize the article is all about the possibility of automation to save labor costs.

My point is that most recent evidence shows that states that raised minimum wage, lowered unemployment and increased economic activity.

No. It isn't sure.

Towns that recently raised minimum wages above national averages report an increase in business and a lowering of unemployment. When consumers are paid more, they spend more. When workers get paid more, they are more loyal, turn over decreases, and business efficiency increases. See Costco.

Just because a notion "seems right" in your mind, doesn't make it so. Try to find evidence that "it is a sure thing that raising the minimum wage will cause more jobs to be automated" before you state it as fact.