Probably because the actual contents of coprolites show what the actual diet was? Then again, you quickly find out that "latest studies" are generally garbage. Much like the: Anti-milk, anti-meat, pro-meat, anti-butter, and so on crap is all garbage.

If you believe in freedom for everyone involved, then that means everyone. If you believe in forced association, then you want the Jewish deli owner imprisoned or fined or put out of business for discrimination.

Or you don't, because you want to pick and choose which discrimination is OK and which isn't -- micromanaging force to be used for whatever whimsical objective you feel good/bad about on a particular day. No one is ever free to choose any different than you. Penalties for unapproved choices will be severe.

Coprolite's seem to show that meat and vegetables though not together all the time was common "when our ancestors lived 10k years ago."

Really? Let's look at their latest moral outrage over a 30 year old limerick that's been used up to this day. Now let's look at the pushback by people against the sjw mindset and narritive. Their narrative is, it's "transphobic" it's not, it actually caused murders(it didn't). If you're unwilling to protect your culture, then don't whine when someone turns around and tries to make it into something you wouldn't recognize. The rest of us however, have no desire to see an already and accepting culture turned into a pile of crap. Much like what they did to atheism, comic books, and the sci-fi/fantasy book genres.

Cracked just finished namedropping gamergate a week ago, and the washington post did something similar a few days ago. It's still in the news, which should tell you something.

Technically no. Neither was she doxed(she released the information herself), or had her nudes released(she did porn, and it's still available on their website). She also left the country on a per-arranged trip and tried to dish it up as a "this is what harassment has done to me..." type of crap. She did however, go after and harass wizardchan not once but at least twice. Tel me, how petty and low do you have to be to go after a bunch of overweight virgins who want to be left alone?

Once you get outside of what narrative they tried to push, and actually look into it yourself, you suddenly find that things don't actually match up. Reality is far different from the fiction presented.

Pretty sure the people on American Airlines flight 77 were civilians.

And I'm pretty sure the US Army guards in front of the NSA building are uniformed military.

Can a Jewish deli owner refuse to serve a guy with a swastika tattoo? Why shouldn't he have that choice? Why shouldn't everyone simply be free to choose who they do business with without the government bullying them?

But the photographer probably wouldn't take photos of every other type of ceremony, either. The photographer would probably refuse to photograph a satanic ceremony, for example.

My wife is a photographer and has shot several gay weddings. We obviously do not find gay marriage or providing services for gay weddings to be objectionable.

But, I think there's a difference between providing a service and selling a product.

If you're baking a cake, it's just a cake. You're not baking a gay wedding cake or a straight wedding cake. It's just a cake. And if you refuse to sell it to someone because they're gay, well that's discriminatory based on the sexual orientation of the client.

But if you sell the service of creating wedding photographs, you are specifically creating photographs that feature a gay wedding or a straight wedding. If you object to gay relationships on religious grounds, you're now being forced to create images the existence of which you find to be immoral.

There's a difference between refusing to sell a product to someone because you believe their actions are immoral, and refusing to perform actions yourself that you believe are immoral.

I think a photographer should be allowed to refuse to shoot the gay wedding, and that people should then loudly denounce them for it. But I don't believe they should be forced to do something they think is immoral.
   

Generally, terrorism is targeted at civilians or civilian infrastructure. An attack on uniformed soldiers at a government/military installation is not terrorism.

You're discriminating against Apple based on your beliefs. If discriminating based on one's beliefs is impermissible, you should be forced to buy iPhones. I hope you're prepared to pay a huge fine or go to jail or be forced out of your job or property by government (or government court-supported) bullying.

Also, it's harder to call something "terrorism" when the targets are heavily armed, more than capable of defending themselves, and are unlikely to be "terrorized" by the attack.

Perpetrators did not have muslim-y names.

I've asked dozens of times for said evidence of people who are pro-GG who've "committed crimes" I have yet to see it. I can however find easily plenty of vocal aGGro's who are active to this day who've actually broken laws, including anti-swatting laws. What I find funny is the comment is the second sentence, you've just come out saying that people can't make their own decisions. You realize how bigoted that is right?

Should salesforce.com be forced by law to do business in Indiana? Why is it permissible for salesforce.com to discriminate against Indiana based on the CEO's beliefs?