TW Telecom is not part of Time Warner and has not been since it was spun off in 1998. In fact in 1999 it was floated on the exchange (NASDAQ: TWTC) and so is its own entity. This headline and story in general is very misleading as Time Warner/ Time Warner Cable and TW Telecom are no longer related.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TW_Telecom

http://www.twtelecom.com/about-us/history/

That is not what the word "discrimination" means so no it would not be discrimination, you should look it up it would make things clearer for you. Pedophilia is illegal and involves an inability to give consent so that is not even in the same ballpark as two consenting adults. As to polygamy, personally I don't care who people marry as long as:

1. Its consensual
2. They can deal with it

So I would not care, but arguably polyamorousness is not an innate trait so... yes they would be able to discriminate.

Its easy for you to say "let businesses decided" when you're not the one being turned away from the only two hotels in a town because you want to share a room with your husband and they won't even serve you after they realize that. Then you have to drive hours away to sleep after driving a full day to get there. When the pain is not yours its always easy to say "deal with it".

Well, hate to shoot holes in your thoughts but my husband and I pay more in taxes as a married couple than we did as individuals so not really sure where you want to go with that. In fact most well paid people do. The only ones that get a tax break for being married are the 80/20 people where one person makes 80% of the income. For all but one of the married gay couples I know, that just does not apply and I know at least 23 married couples. There are not a lot of hard fast numbers out there on this because this is the first year any can file as married. So we will have to see if that pattern bears out.

I think you are thinking of the child deduction, and since we are in process of adopting we would get that deduction, but you state you are ok with that. So, I think you may need to double check your assumptions and maybe if its a state level thing you need to have your state re-evaluate tax policy. Taxes are collected to pay for common public services and goods (Police/Fire and parks) not to promote particular ideologies. That said tax policy is misused all the time, lets fix that problem, not create a new one from it.

Following your analogy, it does matter who you send. Because if the person who shows up is told "you're not my boss" and then has no real power to enforce that they are in fact the boss then who you send is a big deal. The problem is the Feds show up as the "employee" and the States show up as the "boss" and the employee says "what are you going to do about it?" and the answer is.... nothing. The states allowed themselves to be neutered. They can not control funding, the 16th amendment saw to that. They can not force a change, the 17th amendment saw to that. They are left with two options, I am excluding the SCOTUS for obvious reasons, they can push forth a new Amendment repealing the 16th, 17th, and Elastic Clause or... they can raise an army. That is about it. International courts will have no effect, between the economic fear other nations have of a disorganized USA and the real fear of the military they will at most bark, but most will kowtow to the mighty 15 trillion dollar bond beast.

It takes power, not implied or claimed, but REAL power to make that kind of mark and the states just don't have it- at least as far as I can see.

You put fort the idea that the Federal government is "still the employee, subject to the desires of the states". I would agree this was true when the Constitution was written. I would agree that it was Madison's and especially Jeffersons (his fear of the people is well known) plans and ideas. What I am saying is it is no longer true. When the Constitution was amended in 1913 to make Senators directly elected it stopped being for the States and became a direct servant to the people. Do I like that? No. Do I think it was a bad idea? Yes! And do you see an increase in amendments from that point forward pushing more and more power to the Federal level? Yes! My point to you is, that ONE decision is not the basis of it all. Even if we grant it was a bad decision, and roll it back, the power given since still makes the Federal government ONLY beholden to the electorate and not the states. This has neutered the power the states held over the Federal government, now the states must convince the electorate to support their ideas and when faced with a powerful central government with lots of money to spend (thanks to the 16th amendment) to make people "happy" they lose time and time again.

The Elastic Clause was something that should never have been put in the Constitution, and the 17th amendment should never have happened. It should have been something the states would have to delegate, and the Senate was the states only real power over the Federal government (real power, not stated or assigned, but real power to act and make changes).

We are going to have to agree to disagree I have a feeling, but the discussion has been enjoyable.

Do you feel big for pointing out a spelling/typographical error I made while typing on mobile device?

Does it advance the discussion? Did you make some amazing point doing this? Or do you just get to feel big in a very small way?

Yep. You caught me. I made a typo. Yet somehow everyone else knew what I meant and I am even betting you did to.

*clap clap clap* Congratulations

I like the idea. So another few questions and the challenge:

What about "In God we Trust" on government and other public spaces and similar deity based proclamations?
What about statements about God in the Pledge of Allegiance and other government "approved" songs and chants?

I am willing to give "them" Freedom FROM Association in non-life threatening situations under three conditions:
1. They must be open and public about it. In advertisements and in signs out front they must state who they will not allow in. This is so I can book my hotel and car and such when traveling in advance with reasonable assurances. It must be clear, in sufficiently large print, and applied equally

2. There must be some kind of protections in place to keep people from simply using this to drive up the cost of business for a certain class of people. All of the grocery stores can not refuse Black people only to build one that allows them and then charges five times the amount for everything else. I am not a fan of price controls but if Freedom FROM Association includes the right not to rent, hire, or share space with then there must be some kind of protections or people will be driven from their homes by the inability to function in society. It won't happen in big cities, but it will in small rural towns.

3. All forms of Religion and Deity based items must be removed from the law, the government, and all references struck. The application or use of it in ANY government function, service, or organization must be illegal and punishable by law. I will not support Freedom FROM Association until they allow Freedom FROM Religion. Its the only leverage point we have!

Now you seem like a reasonable person. We may disagree on things but you seem reasonable. So, being pragmatic, do you really think the current Congress, the leaders of most Southern USA states, and most of the "religious right" will support this? I don't, so being pragmatic I ask you what do you do now? The utopia of Freedom from/of Religion and Freedom from/of Association is great, and I like it, but much like communism the Utopian idea is just not capable of being practically applied in my opinion. Not until some people give up some deeply held ideologies and concepts- like a "christian based nation" and "God created the USA" and other such things. I don't think we are there yet and I think we have a number of generations to go before we would likely to be there.

First of all, I of course meant to say "Fairness is subjective". Typing tired does not go as well.

Interestingly enough you have setup scenarios that are in my wheelhouse. Without dragging my employer into things employment law and situations is what the company I work for is all about. You are right, often times in 1 off actions there is little to no evidence of causation. However, if you refuse EVERY gay couple ,or fire EVERY Chinese person then its easy to pick out. Often times it does not take a lot of cases, and people usually leave a really obvious trail (emails, statements to others, even written policies!) Someone doing things on "personal ideological grounds" will take action at every opportunity. So, can these laws stop every case of discrimination? No, but neither do speed laws, laws against murder or pretty much any other law we pass. Yet we keep them. Also, with your broadening of the idea of a "thought crime law" then every law is a thought crime law because nearly every crime and law is predicated on the how/why which involves thought- coercion laws, blackmail, corruption, the list goes on in criminal and civil. So, generally speaking thought crime laws refer to laws that make the "thought" illegal, not one that outlaw an act. Affirmative action and laws like that are something completely different and don't really apply to the law being discussed in AZ. No one is setting limits or thresholds on the number of Gay employees.

Your reasoning for taking away the anti-discrimination laws is one I hear often. It is one I often wonder about. Then I see in my job the numbers and cases and I am just boggled that in this time and age it goes on. The point a friend made I thought was well put. He said "We are fooling ourselves as non-protected members if we think we have come a long ways in barely one generation. Just look at smoking to know that with 22% of people under 25 smoking we have not let the information and ideas simmer long enough to have meaningful effect. If smoking still takes up 22% of our youth, then at a similar distribution for discrimination we will be allowing a lot of people to be hurt out of hope".

So, let me ask you. Are you someone protected by the anti-discrimination acts? I ask because, if you are not then spend some time really talking to people who are and ask them just how often they are hit with shit and if they would feel safe or functional in society if those people had freedom of action? I am not of a protected group being gay, and I have been fired for being gay. I catch shit all the time, on a daily basis, even in different cities so the "well move" does not really apply. We just are not there yet, the logic, thinking, and facts have not percolated through enough generations to have lowered the effect enough that we would not be subjecting a large population to a lot of pain out of just a hope.

Fairness is objective. Which is why the law seeks to avoid it. You are promised equality, not fairness. You can measure equality, not fairness. Fairness is a feeling.

Equality is not fairness, and people on both sides get that wrong. Following on your thoughts about laws intended to change peoples thinking, they are not fair an they do not work. Heck, I am against Hate Crimes laws- something I catch hell for from friends. I don't like them because they are laws against thoughts.

That said, discrimination laws are not against thoughts. They are not intended to change thoughts. They are to ensure equality of action and so they are against actions. I can not complain because while hosting my wedding the guy was thinking anti-gay things, or even saying them- though that may be a contract issue of suitability of services provided, a whole other topic. What I can sue for is if he refuses to take the wedding, I can sue for the act. Not the thought and not to change minds. But to prevent a repeat of the act. Thus I get equality of action, not of results or thoughts or other things.

We can never legislate or enact perfect equality, but that does not mean its not worth preventing a decent into abject intolerance and discrimination.

And reading is your friend, you can't just Google "Church Gay Lawsuit" and pick a few, you have to actually READ:

Iowa' Gortz Haus lawsuit (Mennonite): They are preemptively suing out of fear, they have never been forced or asked. They are just afraid. Fear is not a lawsuit. Also, its not a church but a Bed and Breakfast that was a former church. So, again not a religious place just religious people who want to have a public business that is only open to the public types of people they like. http://christiannews.net/2013/10/13/mennonite-wedding-venue-files-counter-suit-to-avoid-being-forced-to-host-same-sex-weddings/

New Jersey's United Methodist Church in Orange Grove: this one is dicey and I personally would come down on the side of the church but they set themselves up. They let others not of their faith (non-christians) and even counter to their faith (Jewish) rent the facility. So to suddenly say no to a group on religious grounds is disingenuous. They even booked a non-christian wedding after they said no to the gays. So, why are they not applying this "faith" to everyone? That was the issue and nothing else. If they really have Faith then why is not applied to everyone? You can't pick and choose. Either you are and you have rules or you are not and you don't. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on/

Emmanuel Temple House of Praise and Lighthouse Outreach Center Assembly of God: This one argues against you! The law has protections to PREVENT them from being forced, and they still sued. Again they were never asked they just don't want gays getting married. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hommarrhi11.htm

The issue with a continuum is where does it start and where does it stop? Ok, only Marriage services? Ok, well this law goes MUCH further than that. I could walk into a Pharmacy and be denied and force to leave. I could walk into ANY kind of store and be denied service. You want to argue on a continuum, then who makes the list, who enforces it, and what if a facility offers multiple services? If one is "protected" and the other is not which rules apply? You could write it but realistically it would be a nightmare to maintain, enforce, etc. It will become a political game and the winner will be the people with more money, it won't be based on such lovely ideas as morals, rights, wrongs, and fair. For evidence see the tax code and nearly every other "continuum" system we have.

Again you seek to narrow history. Hate to tell you, life and history and people existed BEFORE the USA. Just because they have what you believe to be easy explications and reasons for why they did things does not make it something you can exclude from history or "tradition" just because we have found another way to solve them. They are part of our history and our traditions. In South America they have plural men to one woman in some ethnic groups. Same in African nations. In Arab nations they still have multiple wives. There are many people here from Arab nations shall we follow their traditions? You left out the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Romans, the Huns, and Aboriginal people. Again you focus on a few European groups that follow you beliefs. Does not make it plural or traditional, just what you are most familiar with.

Marriage is a word, it is defined by the users. Religious groups do not have a trademark on the term. So it is defined and used as desired by the plurality of the people. Don't like it? Create a new term, trademark it, and license it only to people who agree with you. The politicians are lazy, but in this case they were right. They used the colloquial term used by most all no matter if they got a religious or non-religious contract.

Also, you say "many countries". Can you list them out? I know of few that went that route that were not already that way. In fact I know of none that have not started the process of full Marriage due to the difference in application of the laws, but I am sure I have not check them all.

Sorry, your statement of semi-arbitrary lines was, to me, a bit of the type that could go for or against.

Its one of those things. The courts take a long time, I see people hurt every day by these laws and acts and its hard to say "wait". I understand Martin Luther Kings Letter from a Birmingham Jail better every day. When you have friends who have anti-gay family's and when he gets sick keeps his partner of 15 years out and keeps all of his friends out- you just scream. After a while the small injustices just add up to so much you finally say enough.

Courts, acts, laws, whatever it takes just short of violence. And in places like Nigeria & Russia I say get violent. Mandela started with Gandhi and finished with guerrilla warfare. It does not look like it will have to go that far here, but a few more years and it would have been dicey.

I like the idea. I have often spoken that I would love it if we could live it. But the reality is that we are not there yet as a people- meaning humanity.

Question, just as a curiosity. Would my right to Freedom from Religion be impinging on your Freedom of Religion if it was against the law for you to proselytize or knock on my door to push a deity?

The complexity is in the application, not the length of the law. Something can be written simply and complex to apply and enforce.

Make different life choices? You mean like stop believing in invisible sky creatures that command their every move in life? All for it!

I better understand where you come from now and the point you were trying to make. It was not clear and was very flippant at best.

I have read many of the Jefferson & Madison & Henry papers (really more letters)- a consequence of growing up in Virginia & having an interest in history. It is true that many of them were concerned about a large central government. Henry advocated that Virginia not even join the Union for he feared any central government. Franklin wanted a stronger central government than most, but even he was wary. I am well aware of us being a Republic, hence you notice I made points not to refer to us a Democracy or any of the other often misused terms. We are a representative republic. We are not America, we are THE United STATES of America, a Union of States. I more than understand that distinction and despite your not so subtle put down did not learn my history in a weak public school having failed to read adult books. Though I do not carry a degree in history I can read and I can process logic, and amazingly enough carry on an intelligent conversation.

All that said they gave the people a tool for changing the document. Right or wrong, like it or not, they made it a framework and accepting their fallibility they made it changeable. The supremacy the Federal government, like it or not, has gained over the years has been some what at the hands of courts but more so at the hands of the people and the states- the amendments. The 18th amendment besides outlawing alcohol at the Federal level gave the government vast powers to enforce and take action. As did the 16th, 17th, and some would argue the 19th all moved powers from the states to the Federal level. In fact in nearly every amendment the power of enforcement was given to the Federal government time and again.

So, while you do not like a strong central government (and I think our government is too large and far away often even at the state level) the reality is that the people have through attrition and some would say the Tyranny of Small Decisions moved the power in this nation to the Federal government.

I think the issue is that you argue what you feel things should be at the Federal government and I argue from what I see as the pragmatic position of what they are. No matter what our "Founding Fathers" (which as a quick aside were far from Christian and far more Humanist but I digress) wanted or feared they gave the people the power to make changes, and changes they have made. We have moved from from what they started, and closer in many ways to what they feared. Despite doing so this is still "Of the People by the People" and so it is a reflection of that, be it through action or inaction, and so when I evaluate the Marriage as a Contract of Common Law and see it as a Federal issue I do so not in the light of Jefferson & Madison or Henry, but in the light of the will and acts of the people since.

The law is not history, it something that evolves over time and in this nation it ostensibly does it according to the will of the people or at least through their inaction.

When we start to successfully stand up in less complicated areas I would be the first to support it in the complicated ones. However given humanity's penchant for finding every which way to do do the wrong thing or to screw over the "other".. yeah keep it simple. Just being pragmatic no matter how much the idea sucks.