Here in the US, males 26 and older are forced to buy health insurance that includes pregnancy, even though pregnancy isn't a health condition for males.

Billionaire says "figure out a way to" pay for it. Meanwhile, he will be figuring out ways to collude with other companies to keep your salary low and to bring in thousands of people from Asia to compete with you for jobs.

For 401k plans, you pay the money into the plan every paycheck. When the person retires, no more money is paid into the account. The retiree draws upon the money saved during his working years. All the costs are up-front, borne by the people who received the benefit from the work done.

With pensions, all the promises are up front. Then people who come along later are stuck with the bill -- paying for more and more in pensions and getting less and less in government services.

Veteran's pensions don't fight wars. Police pensions don't patrol the streets. Fire fighter pensions don't put out fires. Teacher pensions don't teach kids.

Pensions should be replaced with a 401K-style savings plan. The people who soldiers fought for should be paying the cost, not their grandchildren. If you got fire protection from a fire fighter, you should pay, not the guy who moves into your town 10 years after the fire fighter retires.

So what's the difference and why does it matter?

The same thing that's wrong with all one-size-fits-all requirements: One size does not fit all, and the people your requirements don't fit are being oppressed.

Most such requirements, including this one, are also unnecessary. Buy your car where you can get service if you want. Don't if you don't. So your requirement oppresses people, and it does it unnecessarily. If you want a working definition of government evil, that's a good start.

If you look at the chart at the link, it's 500-1000 out of 22000 or so -- 22000 is an all time high. So it's obviously the most outrageous outrage in history and we should all panic and wail and rend our clothes.

A 5% budget cut is "the destruction of the greatest source of innovation the U.S. -- and the world -- has ever seen"?

Just for some perspective on Federal government spending, "General Science, Space, and Technology" spending is up 12% (after inflation adjustment) from 2002-2012 and "Health" spending is up 41% during the same period. "Energy" spending is up 2400%.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/... -- see table 3.2

Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own a TV.

Every time the government uses force or authority or coercion, it's bullying -- regardless of the reason.

Free people do not have to justify not performing a service. She chose not to. Her reasons are none of anyone's business.

That's the reason for the law. Some woman in New Mexico was fined for refusing to be a wedding photographer for a lesbian wedding.

http://www.deseretnews.com/art...

The law is to keep innocent people from being bullied by (or with in the case of lawsuits) the government for choosing who they do business with.

3-4 sentences is a "complex" law, I guess.

My preference is for zero laws telling people who to do business with. If that doesn't work out great for some people, then maybe they should consider making some different life choices. But there's nothing wrong with a fair compromise.

For the sake of peace, let me suggest a compromise:

For businesses that serve a critical need, like the only ambulance or pharmacy or gas station or hotel within 100 miles, they must accept everyone. They lose a little freedom to choose, but they are a monopoly and can charge monopoly prices to make up for it.

For every other business, the business owner gets to pick and choose her customers freely -- unless all businesses offering similar, critically needed services excluded the same people. Then the customer could demand to be served because of "unfair discrimination". If the business owner refuses, she faces lawsuits and/or other government reprisal. If the customer falsely claims "unfair discrimination", he faces similar lawsuits and/or other government reprisal.

How's that for a fair compromise that solves all the hypothetical problems?

It should be good enough ... unless government bullying of innocent people is the actual objective and this pharmacy argument is just a way to sell it to people who, on balance, would rather the government not harass wedding cake bakers.

gays are perfectly free to marry people of the opposite sex

See how free everyone is?