I don't see how either of the articles you point to say that the claims made in the Washington Times article are debunked - they support what was claimed. The second article you cite explains very clearly that the City Attorney stated that if the pastor refused to perform a same-sex marriage that he would be in violation of the ordinance - violation of the ordinance is a criminal misdemeanor with up to 6 months of jail time for each offense and up to a $1,000.00 fine for each offense. That someone wants to earn a living through the performance of a religious act does not strip the act of its religious nature.

Catholics, for instance, view marriage as a sacrament and The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the sacraments as "efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions."

The apostle Paul wrote about earning a living through the spreading the gospel:

You should really actually read the article you cite to prove that the Federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA are so radically different. The author, Josh Blackman, states at the end:

On an additional note, you might want to actually read the article you cite to prove that the Federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA are so radically different. The author, Josh Blackman, states at the end:

The reason why these laws have been coming down is because people are concerned, rightly, that they will be compelled to engage in forced expression in favor of something that they find morally wrong. Whether you believe it is morally wrong is besides the point - no one should be compelled to engage in any form of expressive activity in favor of something they find morally repugnant. The first amendment enshrines our freedom of speech and the 13th states that no form of involuntary servitude is to be permitted in the United States - and trust me, if you're forced to make the choice between (1) being fined into eternal indebtedness to the state (as these fines cannot be discharged in bankruptcy) or having your livelihood cut off or (2) engaging in conduct you find wrong: it's involuntary. Why are people concerned about this? Bakers have been put out of business because they refused to use their artistic talents (which express themselves) to make wedding cakes for homosexual unions. At least one photographer was handed down ruinous fines for refusing to photograph a homosexual wedding. A florist was shut down for refusing to make a floral arrangement for a homosexual wedding. Each of these people believe that their actions would be tantamount to approving the homosexual wedding and such actions would be in violation of their deeply held religious belief (see, i.e. Romans 1:32 - the conduct itself is condemned, but even those who approve of such conduct are condemned). Frankly, I don't think that the gays who asked for these services did so in good faith - they did it to cause problems for those people because they loathe them. They want to drive religious expression completely from the public square and keep it confined to a two hour slot on Sunday (or Saturday as the case may be).

You do realize, don't you, that the federal courts have, with the exception of two circuits (and the Supreme Court smacked down the reasoning used by Judge Posner in the 7th circuit - so it really means only one circuit is an exception), found that using the courts in a private suit constitutes government action because the judiciary is part of the government. In other words, the Federal RFRA would be applied in the same exact way as the Indiana RFRA would - as a defense raised before the court because the court could not rule on the case because it would involve government action in contravention of a person's sincerely held religious beliefs? The Indiana version merely codifies this rule. So no real difference here. This one issue swallows both of your "differences" because 1.) The government becomes an actor once it comes to court and 2.) The Federal RFRA becomes essentially an affirmative defense because of #1.

Concealed carry is legal in most California counties only if you have an in (read: large contribution) with the Sheriff because whether or not a license is issued is entirely discretionary with the Sheriff. Most counties have not followed the Peruta case because there was a question as to whether the 9th circuit would be taking it up en banc (it decided to do so yesterday). So, no, we don't really have concealed carry in California.

And the rest of the country doesn't want you so-called "progressive" ideological bigots and fascists either.

Calvin and dad

Calvin Bambi eyes. . .

happen to be named Moreau?

Who are we going to do first, the chimps or the dolphins?

are belong to us.

Einstein - Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

Actually boys outperform girls in science and math testing whereas girls outperform boys on reading and writing testing. However, girls are GRADED better than boys in all areas. Check out this study from University of Georgia and Columbia University

A study by researchers from the University of Georgia and Columbia University, which evaluated 5,800 elementary school children, came to the opposite conclusion as these Israeli researchers. Researchers analyzed data from 5,800 elementary school students and found that boys performed better on standardized exams in math, reading and science than their course grades reflected.

From the above-referenced study:

and

So, in short, if a boy acts and has a similar learning style as girls, he will get the same grades as girls. Women dominate the teaching profession - 84% of teachers are women. In Kindergarten it's even worse - 98% of teachers are women. Therefore, women apparently value students whose learning style is similar to their own.

In another study, boys were awarded lower grades by women teachers than by external examiners. Whereas male teachers gave girls the same marks as external examiners.

On the political side, in 1972 there were 17% fewer women graduates of college programs than men and this was considered something of a crisis and Title IX was passed to ensure equal opportunities for education regardless of gender. Today, 25% few men than women graduate from college and President Obama calls this a "great accomplishment."

Since 93% of job fatalities are men, there's a real need to push women into jobs where they have a non-negligible chance of dying on the job - equality demands it!