That's very different, as the clerk of the courts is a public official.

As I've said, it seems to me this is very similar to the Little Sisters of the Poor case making it through the federal courts. So it's hardly settled law, but it might be before too long.

Quite possibly... I can imagine a bakery having a "terms of service" that says they refuse to do "obscene" images. Should that be illegal?

You've totally missed the point. The distinction between the two cases is the type of service provided, not the person being served. If I would refuse to make a cake with two grooms on top even if the person requesting the cake were straight, then I am technically not denying service to someone based on their sexual orientation.

And if this issue is so "settled", why is a similar situation (regarding contraceptive waivers and Obamacare) up before the Supreme Court?

And thanks for the condescending tone, btw, that really helps make your point seem valid.

That's a good question. I didn't specifically say that case 2 should or should not be legal, just that it's a much harder question than case 1, which is what most people seem to be assuming (and having knee-jerk reactions about).

What about cases where the owner is "progressive" and it's the client that's not in step with the prevailing sentiment... say I'm Jewish and I own a sign shop, and the local KKK chapter comes in wanting to print up signs for their next rally, am I obliged to do that for them? Or what if I'm pro-choice, and the local pro-life group comes in an wants me to run off a hundred giant posters of aborted fetuses? Or what if I'm gay, and the Westboro Baptist Church wants me to make up posters for their next protest?

If you're willing to say yes to all of those cases too, then at least you're consistent.

People seem to be conflating two different things:

1. Refusing to serve gays because they are gay. A gay person goes into a bakery, asks for one of those croissants in the display case, and the owner refuses to serve that person solely because they are gay. This is what most people seem to be imagining.

2. Refusing to participate in/support an event that goes against one's religious beliefs. Similar bakery, but now someone (straight or gay) asks for a wedding cake for a gay wedding (with two grooms on top, say). If the baker has a religious belief that opposes gay marriage, must they still provide the cake?

Expanding on #2 a bit:
- What if the bakery customer is a Satanist, and wants a cake with a graphic depiction of a virgin sacrifice, or a ritual orgy, or something like that?
- What if it's a church rather than a bakery; should a gay couple be allowed to force a pastor to perform a gay wedding, even if that goes against the church's teachings? Most people would say no, but where's the line between a church and a bakery? What if the bakery is run by a convent? This is similar to the situation in front of the Supreme Court, with the Obamacare contraception coverage waiver.

As others have mentioned, the Arizona bill doesn't directly mention sexuality at all, so it's not immediately obvious whether it only addresses case 2 or if it also covers case 1. But they're clearly different, and it would be nice if more people would recognize that.

How long would it take you to make a Pentium by hand?

That seems like a reasonable hypothesis. Recall that we're talking about Switzerland specifically and not Europe as a whole though. This article indicates that the Swiss welfare system is rather unique. There are other aspects that feed into this situation like immigration and drug policies too.

I think they're about as relevant as national health care is to the issue of gun violence. And chocolate would be tastier, too, though I suppose that works against the obesity angle.

If I'm going to speculate wildly, I would guess that mandatory military training is probably the biggest contributor to safe gun ownership in Switzerland. Ethnic and cultural homogeneity may play a role too.

What country other than Switzerland has lots of guns and low gun crime? Wouldn't it be just as valid to mention chocolate and cuckoo clocks as correlating with lots of guns and low gun crime?

I wasn't singling you out. I was mostly responding to the statement 3 levels up:

The follow-on comments (including yours) seemed supportive of that thesis. Your desire to emphasize Fox's faults and no one else's certainly didn't sound like you were disagreeing.

So someone points out five examples of serious bias by non-Fox networks, only two of which apparently ended in apologies... and the response isn't "yea, they're all biased", but rather "Fox doesn't apologize"?

Simply googling "fox network apology" show's that it isn't entirely true that Fox never apologizes: here's one example, and another.

I never watch Fox News or MSNBC or any other TV news show, and I'm not defending Fox. But it seems like if your vehement argument for superiority boils down to "my partisan biased news show is somewhat more likely to apologize for its excesses when it gets caught than yours", you might want to be a little less proud of that.

And yet, the original comment gets modded flamebait, and both of the retorts get modded up...

Exactly... how is Dish Network going to fare better than ReplayTV did?

I sure hope they find a way... I clung to our 5000-series model for years because of automatic commercial skip. One of the best purchases I ever made, and the highest WAF score ever for an electronic device. (Note that the 5000s also have commercial skip, as I believe ReplayTV started building them before they lost the lawsuit. The 5500 series then came out, which is basically the 5000 series without commercial skip.)

Finally when we got a 55-inch TV I decided that I needed something with hi-def output and switched to Dish. I'd be thrilled if commercial skip came back and I didn't have to grab for the remote and start pounding the 30-second skip button every time a commercial came on.

As opposed to the current bill, which is a Democratic sham specifically designed for Republicans to kill.