The link is between nutrition and brain development, and considering the odds of poor nutrition is higher in poorer families than in wealthier families, the conclusion does not seem bad at all. Nothing says that all families that live in poverty will have children with developmental problems, but it does argue you're much more likely to see the phenomenon in such families.

I can't imagine why anyone would see this as controversial.

And how was a minority population viewed as subhuman, terrorized by both legal and extralegal organizations supposed to participate in the market? Jim Crow was only one aspect of a century of segregation and persecution of southern African Americans. Your perpetuating this fantasy that it was all the legislatures' faults, when every historical indication was that the majority of Americans in the Jim Crow states had absolute no problem with the laws, or with the idea that blacks and whites should not mingle, even in the market square.

Again, I will repeat, business is not some separate entity, some creature that exists in a vacuum. It exhibits the same prejudices that the wider society does, because it is simply a facet of that society. The Jim Crow laws weren't forced upon all southerners, they were forced on blacks by a majority of southerners who wanted to make sure they stayed at the bottom of the pole.

I don't know what is surprising about this. We've known for decades that poor nutrition during the developmental years can lead to poor brain development and permanent cognitive problems.

"Business" is not some entity that exists in a vacuum. The Jim Crow laws were passed with the consent of the majority of white southerners, and were maintained for decades. There's little or no evidence of any dissatisfaction on the part of the majority of Southerners to such laws, and indeed every indication that Segregation was viewed as right and proper.

I'm sorry you have a hard time accepting this, but Antebellum society until recently was fundamentally racist, and the businesses and legislatures of those states merely reflected the public mood. You will note that there was virtually no Southern civil rights movement, and that the pressure, and ultimately the solution, to Segregation and Jim Crow came from outside.

Those laws were passed with little or no opposition from Southern society. They weren't forced on the South, they were an expression of the fear and general disdain for Southern blacks by the white majority.

You're trying desperately to let Southern whites from the end of Reconstruction until the 1960s off the hook for a general and pervasive racism by claiming the State legislatures were at fault. It's absurd and bizarre, but it's the kind of idiocy I've come to expect from Libertarians.

The logic does not follow. Homosexuality is conduct between consenting adults; children and animals cannot, by their very nature, grant consent.

It's cute of you to think you have the vaguest idea what you're talking about.

The segregated South falsifies your claim. The free market in those states would quite happily have excluded blacks from the mainstream economic system in perpetuity if left to itself.

The "invisible hand" is a pile of steaming bullshit, as unevidenced a god as Yahweh.

- People who run a business (like a bakery) should be absolutely free to refuse service to anyone, at any time, with or without giving a reason. It's not the government's business. If a bakery wants to make cakes for government functions, they follow the government's rules. If the public doesn't like it, the business changes their policy or closes. Period. (Ignoring all the ways the government can visit "unrelated" reprisals on uncooperative subjects.)

Except that isn't true. The Civil Rights Act 1964 pretty much killed segregation, which based on that very claim. Generations of African Americans grew up banished from many white-run businesses based on the claim "businesses have an absolute right."

The fact is that businesses do not have absolute rights to refuse service, and have not had an absolute right in half a century.

Oh bullshit. There was general social consensus in the Jim Crow states that blacks needed to be segregated, that contact between the races should be minimized as much as possible. The governments of these states were doing precisely what the majority in these states wanted.

And you know Jesus would feel this way how exactly?

You wouldn't be a God-fearing bigot if didn't constantly compare homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia.

One brave and short-lived business. That's the problem with these laws; essentially they allow the majority to persecute the minority, under the cover of "religious freedoms". It strikes me as being no different than the same disingenuous arguments used to justify Segregation.

How does one explain the Civil Rights Act of 1968, then?

You do understand that in science, predictions doesn't mean "predicting the future", right?