The problem is that the holy rollers won't lose money. Gays are a tiny minority. It is estimated that at most 5% of the population is gay, and only a fraction of them are "out", the rest miserably pretending to be heterosexual to fit in.

It is entirely possible that there will be *no* photographers in your small town who will photograph a gay wedding.

Should a shop be able to refuse to provide a cake with a mixed race couple on it? Or a black couple?

They weren't blacklisted. Stop with your damn conspiracy. IT was a movie in an industry that knows full well beginning actors aren't in the union.

You get your card AFTER you have done some work.

SHe is actually pretty good. The professional, Heat she is really good.

I suspect she has just picked poor scripts in most her roles.

Hey now! Teak has character. That's why it make beautiful furniture.

" Empire Strikes back is jumbled; no real beginning or end."

It's not supposed to. I understand that some people need simple stories wrapped up in a neat package, but don't blame the oive.

Just stick you your sitcom and laugh tracks, let the adults enjoy a story.

Maybe you should learn to enjoy build up and tension and not just pretty lights and explosions?

You're right about his acting ability, but the killer for the movie was direction. Portman is a much better actor, but lame script and mediocre director was what really did it in. I suspect if she was more mature at the time she could have pushed back on some of the script and direction choices.

All the hot grits in the world can't save her from that script.

And that skill is 23 throat punches a minute.

The first set dealt with unknowns in lead roles. The fact that one of them became a megastar is pretty good.

The last three where horrible directed.

Yeah, a 'eager' 125,000 for an entry level position.

Actors are paid too damn much.

That's some good bluster, but if you e.g. post "Whites Only" signs on your doors, you'll find yourself in court in very short order. There you'll find out that your freedom to accept or reject customers is in fact circumscribed by anti-discrimination laws.

Sounds like you actually have a problem with state-sponsored marriage (gay or straight), but you're only willing to apply your logic to gay marriage.

Which religion are you referring to? There are plenty of religions that approve of gay marriage, and there are also plenty of religions that think various straight marriages (e.g. second marriages, or inter-racial or inter-religious marriages) are wrong. It's not clear why any of that is relevant to what the state should or shouldn't do, given that (in the USA anyway), church and state are meant to be kept separate from each other.

It's actually quite easy for a homosexual marriage to have children. Gays of either gender can adopt, and gay women can get pregnant and give birth. And if you want to play the "it's all about the children" card, you then have to explain why infertile/childless straight couples should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of marriage.

Just to be clear -- the US government can and does force businesses to take any "Whites Only" signs down. Outside of "private clubs", discrimination by businesses was outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It sure is -- but does a person who is working at their workplace have a right to privacy? Particularly when hundreds of lives depend on their actions?

I say we get rid of the cockpit entirely, and instead provide a set of virtual controls in every passenger seat's seatback touchscreen. That way the passengers can fly the plane democratically. It will only fly into a mountain if that's what a majority of the passengers want it to do.

(Now, where do I pick up my consulting fee? ;))