"You attaching moral values on to the cake is again your own choice."

You say "moral". I say "religious". Don't ignore the constitution.

"How is it forcing when said individual CHOOSE to open a business/choose a profession that might put them in situations where they're exposed to things they religiously object?"

Ever hear the concept of corporate personhood? The concept dates back early in the 19th century (early in our existence as a nation). I believe it applies. Further, sole proprietorships do not give up constitutional rights when choosing to do business.

Why should Apple be apolitical? Apple, as any other privately held company, should be what its owners - i.e. its voting shareholders - want it to be. Shareholders express such desires by voting for the board, and the board places a guy in charge who is the spokesperson for the company. If the guy in charge voices a particular opinion in his role as a CEO, then he's speaking for the company, and ultimately, for the shareholders. Do you expect the shareholders to be utterly apolitical?

Furthermore, the political view that is voiced is not even necessarily matched by the shareholders, but they can expect the company to voice it for the sake of PR. Given the stereotypical Apple customer, this seems like a smart strategy. Then there are employees, who do expect a some degree of political alignment from the companies they work for - and, again, given the overall IT culture in US, and especially in the Silicon Valley, being firmly pro-gay-rights provides Apple with a good public image from hiring perspective.

If you don't like it, why, go ahead and voice your displeasure by selling your AAPL stock. If enough people will do it, the company will notice. You have the shares, right? If not, then why are you even bitching about this in the first place?

It's a positive message insofar as it works toward reducing discrimination. Or at least most of Apple's customers will see it that way, which is what matters. And "slandering" is, of course, just your subjective politicized twist.

Not at all. This is a crucial difference. Note that you can still seek redress against corporations if you want (e.g. by organizing boycotts and such), but it's a different ballpark if you want to seek such redress via courts and other means provided by the state - which meansusing state power to achieve redress. So, again, this isn't state using its power to make it more difficult - it's state withdrawing its power to make it more difficult (because otherwise that power is used to make it easier).

At no point did I say that it's okay. It's a bad law, and I think that state power should be used to combat discrimination like that. I just want us to be perfectly clear about what exactly we're doing here - which is using the power of the state to force people to do a certain thing, because the social value of that thing is higher than the negative of infringing on their freedom (of speech and association). I also want to make clear the difference between private discrimination (limited by the fundamental protections the law provides to everyone), and discrimination by the state (which basically has no limits as to how far it can go).

"then the owner must accept all the laws of the land,"

Agreed.

"... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Your point?

If you force an individual to take part in something to which they have a religious objection how are you not violating the first amendment?

Can I refuse to sell you cake based on race or whatever? No. Can I refuse to sell you a WEDDING cake, decorating it in a way that is counter to my religious beliefs? I believe the answer to that would be and should be YES.

Would *I*? No. I don't think it's a big deal. Either way.

Just don't bring the green orb with you.

But I like toast and jam.

Was this a Fareed original, or yet another of his pieces of plagiarism?

Pretty sure it means 'return on investment' in this context, but as they don't supply the cost of the investment, the location these salaries are drawn from, the number of years after the degree, etc, etc, etc, it's just another bit of Dice-tastic link bait.

I'm too sexy for my hat, what do you think about that?

Ever hear of angie's list? It has been around for a decade or two and largely takes the difficult out of the equation.

I was kind of thinking the same thing. Except instead of yellow pages, I was thinking angie's list. They do some subscription thing to make money but screen reviews and only allow customers of whatever services to make them. I think they are limited to home improvement type stuff though.

Don't you think there is a difference between someone who can afford booze and drugs who can hold a job and someone who drinks to the point they cannot? Isn't there a difference between someone who buys a bag of weed and someone who buys groceries?

Just because we do the same things doesn't mean we are equally doing them. When you know when to stop, when you don't do it beyond your means, you do not end up losing your means, you are not the same. But that really doesn't matter because other choices play a bigger role. Choices like being a single mom or having 10 trophies (kids) or screwing up jobs so you are stuck with shit jobs and low pay.

But hey, did you know that two income families making minimum wage is not considered in poverty? Divorce them and both will be.

Obviously, the state not allowing itself to intervene is obviously not an exercise of the power of the state - it's an exercise in restraint of said power.

The actual discriminatory power in this case comes from the individuals and corporations that discriminate - if there are none willing to do so, or if there are few enough and their scale is small, then it's all of no consequence. Even if said discrimination is pervasive, it is still limited to what private entities can legally do - so it's a very far cry from what government-powered discrimination can do (for example, it is not legal for corporations in the USA to summarily round up their customers and murder them in gas chambers; or to incarcerate them because they married a person of a different race).

Couldn't agree with you less. It's the same human soul, tempter, and temptations.