So I cannot say, not do business with people who have pink underwear? Private businesses are FREE to discriminate based on you appearance, your smell, or even your gender as they see fit. They also have the right to refuse entry to individuals if they run a retail store. (No kids in the china shop for instance), "No shirt, no shoes, no service!" etc. Yes there are protected classes codified into law (as well there should be) but the first amendment is abundantly clear that government does NOT have the right to insert itself by law into the religious beliefs or expression of these beliefs and that includes how a business chooses to conduct it's business. You don't give up your religious freedom just because you have a business.

Actually what is wrong is those who UNDER COLOR OF LAW attempt to force businesses to act or do things outside their religious values. That Gay couple that sued the bakery for refusing to make them a wedding cake (you've heard the stories) when the owners objected to participating in the wedding in any way. Having the courts order them to violate their moral values is doing exactly what you say shouldn't be done. My religious freedom trumps your right to force My business UNDER COLOR OF LAW to do what you decide is right. Or we really have no religious freedom...

It's in the constitution, first amendment actually. It's also discussed in the declaration of independence. But Just so you know what I'm talking about:

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.

Which was promulgated to include the states by the 14th which states in part: " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Seems pretty clear that what I'm advocating for is constitutional. Where I wish laws like this where unnecessary, unfortunately there are those who UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW seek to limit others religious rights and I don't see a constitutional issue with making a state law that protects such rights.

How is one's "private business" now "public"? If it's MY business, it's my business how it is run and if I don't want to serve people w/o shoes or who wear pink underwear it's legal. (or it SHOULD be legal). If I choose to only serve people who have specific beliefs, why is that a problem? It is my PRIVATE business and if I want to say open a place that is segregated by gender based on my religious belief that men and women should not be together in public unless they are related, why do YOU care?

I can tell you are not thinking clearly about the unintended consequences of what you are advocating. Yea, you might solve something that YOU define as a problem, but once you get the camel's nose in the tent on this the whole thing is coming in and all you need to do is open a business and you forfeit all your rights to holding and acting on your religious beliefs while you are doing your business. Do a bit of critical thinking about what regulations like you would advocate for would actually do to the free practice of religion and remember our forefathers paid for this freedom in blood. We should be VERY careful not to just give it all away because some nut case abuses his freedom on religious grounds.

I'm not saying this is a PERFECT approach, but it certainly was inspired genius that brings us to this "more perfect union" where your right to practice religion is codified in the constitution.

And YOUR answer is to legislate that people must violate their religious beliefs because YOU don't think what they are doing is moral? I'd say the pot is calling the kettle black here but in reality the people who have your view are missing the point.

We either do or we don't have religious freedom here and if that freedom doesn't extend into how people can conduct business and what activities they choose to be involved in and what they refuse to do, then we really DON'T have the freedom, We have government interfering with religion which is expressly forbidden in our constitution..

Don't like it? Sorry. Get the constitution changed, but I warn you that you won't like the results.

No, we are not discussing mixing church and business. We are discussing an Individual's right to express their religion when they do business, to believe something and actually act according to what they believe.

Hobby Lobby is a recent example of businesses which are run by people with specific beliefs that have affected how they do business, Chick-Fil-A is another. Both businesses are closed on Sunday out of deference to their religious beliefs. Are you implying they should NOT be free to do that?

We either have freedom of religion or we don't. I believe that almost 200 years ago that question was settled for the people of the United States.

No, I'm advocating for common sense in religious freedom.

Remember "Hobby Lobby" ? Go read that opinion, you will better understand why I used the terms I did.

No, I don't see a flaw. Except in YOUR logic.

There are things which are protected as a matter of law and you cannot discriminate based on these things. Then there are things which you CAN discriminate on. I say we let the free market decide on everything not currently enshrined in our laws about how to do business..

Allowing people to express their sincere religious belief in how and who they choose to do business with SHOULD be allowed regardless, as a matter of law. If you don't like how a business is run or who it does or refuses service to, you are free to take your business elsewhere and share your views with your friends, neighbors or even the random person on the street if they will listen.

Let the market decide and if the majority of people think like you and take their business some other place, so be it. Just live your life and do your business and let others do the same. Seems like freedom to me.

Forcing people to do business with people in situations where they object, does NOT seem like freedom to me.

Somehow saying, "I'm going to precision bomb you back into the stone age if you do that!" just doesn't carry the same ring as "I can turn your sand into blue glowing glass for miles around if you do that!"

Precision guided weapons have the distinct advantage of hitting what you aim at and almost nothing else but present a more serious problem of KNOWING exactly when and where to put that bomb.

Nuclear weapons are like huge hand grenades where being within a few thousand feet is usually just fine so the targeting issue is easier to handle, only now you have the collateral damage problem to deal with.

Both weapons have their place...

You forget to add that two of the three contributors are BIOLOGY majors... What are they doing writing Java code for an academic paper?

Of course not, it's just their program was so much of a turd that the plugged up the plumbing and the bowl overflowed before they could get the plunger. I'll bet they don't even realize that their "write to disk" likely didn't actually happen until long after the OS cached it and the program got told the write was completed.

Well, two biology majors did comprise 2/3rds of the contributors to this madness... I sure hope the Electrical and Computer engineer didn't get a PHD for this.. There's no way to defend this with a straight face if you ask me.

In JAVA and Python nonetheless. Anybody who tries to draw conclusions about HARDWARE performance who uses JAVA and Python are off their rockers out of the gate. Testing the speed difference between memory and disk in Java is problematic and Python is not much better. In this case the problem really is their programming skills though. But what do you expect... Out of the three authors, only ONE isn't a biology major...

... you're asking me to work with equipment which is hardly very far ahead of stone knives and bearskins.

I am endeavoring, ma'am, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bear skins....

No it's not ridiculous. If you don't choose to vote, that is your choice. Of course, if you don't vote, there is not much you can complain about when others do and elect people that don't do what you wanted...

Of course, what IS ridiculous is this idea that we can somehow force people to exercise their right to vote in a country where we cannot universally require photo ID's. How on earth would you enforce this idea that everybody votes? Fines? Prison time? How? Would you allow people to hire proxy services to cast their vote when they cannot be present for some reason that comes up on election day?

The real problem here is folks don't get taught that it is their civil duty to vote. Really, all they get taught is that it is their civil duty to protest and riot and junk like that. Most are so disillusioned by politics that they feel OUTSIDE the system, when in fact the PRIMARY way to get change is to VOTE. Most cannot be bothered, most think their vote doesn't count, when the truth is that only a vote not cast is the one that doesn't count. So your solution is to pass a new law? Yea, that's the absolute wrong move.

I don't see why Taxi companies don't arrange with Uber and Lyft to do their dispatching anyway. The Taxi company could then dump the bulk of their office staff needed to answer the phone and dispatch cabs, then arrange with the online service for a volume discount...

Where I live, if you get paid to drive over public roads, it requires a commercial driver's license. CDL's require you to pass additional testing and medical evaluations which are not required for your average private driver. Taxi services also must be licensed and are regulated by both the state and federal laws.

My understanding of Uber and Lyft are that they allow private citizens to arrange for ride "sharing" with other private individuals. Where nothing prevents such drivers from being properly licensed for getting paid, or for Taxi companies from using the online services to find customers, that's not the point and you are likely to end up with just some plain Joe out driving for some spare change on their free time in his private vehicle.

Personally I HAVE a class B CDL with passenger endorsements because I used to drive busses so I know something about what the rules are. Uber and Lyft make no attempt to validate that the law is followed (unless they've started requiring CDL's from their drivers since last time I checked), they don't require CDL's, they don't require medical certificates, nothing. They don't enforce the rules about how long you can be on duty, or how much rest a driver is required to have. So tell me again how they protect you?

Oh that's right, they know where the money came from and where it went after they take their cut... Which *might* be of some use AFTER a crime takes place, but it's not going to protect your safety like all the CDL rules are designed too... So I suppose there is a minor deterrent to crime, but somehow I doubt that it's going to be of much help for anything else.