Oh ya, because we know he was born on Mars and he's been denying it all his life. Denial is the best evidence of a lie. The whole Kenya thing is just a smokescreen to entrap the ignorant who don't know the Mars story.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
I'm having difficulty imagining how this happened. The forgot to "check" autofill, or did the article goof and mean "uncheck" autofill? And what would autofill do anywa? I use Outlook but I have no autofill that I see. Will it fill in a random list of addresses if you forget to put anything in the "To:" field?
Actually, that theory makes the most sense...
For information, their car did ram a police vehicle that was blocking their entrance, presumably intentionally. This was not just some people intending a humorous protest in drag up at the NSA steps.
It is political though, since it's all about encouraging the voters.
And because the democrats supported this push for equal rights, the intolerant segments of the south responded by flipping in very short time over to the republicans. A few could not even bear this indignity and instead created a third segregationist party, the Dixiecrats, but in short order they became republican too. Soon the relative newcomers controlled the party, which previously was a very pro-business and pro-industry party with little in common with southern interests. This is very much analogous to the magnetic poles flipping.
I find it absolutely ironic that today they love to call themselves the "Party of Lincoln" when for a century the south hated the republicans with a passion. Their famed leaders like Lincoln or Eisenhower have nothing in common with the current party. Even Reagan would be unlikely to be elected today because he'd be seen as too liberal, too pro-tax, and he had too many friends who were democrats. Nixon though they like to distance themselves from, but he's the man who caused the poles to flip with his southern strategy.
There are a few distinct differences between that older bills and this new one, even though the title is somewhat similar.
First, the law applies to for-profit businesses. And religious beliefs can be used as a defense in any private lawsuit. This clause was added because a similar New Mexico law lost a legal challenge for those reasons. The federal law does not have this clause. The original federal law and most of the state laws that copied it, are based upon keeping the government from interfering with expression of religious views (like muslim inmates being allowed to keep beards).
NExt, the law applies to protections of practices whether or not compelled by a system of religious belief. That is, very fringe practices not justified by the religion are under the protection here. So even if your church has no divinely inspired scriptures telling you to not sell products to gay people, you can still claim that you are protected by this law. Thus the Church of Cannabis has opened in Indiana, with the use of cannabis being a part of their beliefs, using this law as their basis to exist legally.
The federal law at the time was a relatively benign law, meant to protect things like feeding the homeless in parks. Since then the law has been interpreted differently by several courts and many of the people originally supporting the law in congress have backed away from it. Having a similar title does not make two laws the same thing.
No Jesus did not get involved with politics. But he has associated with known sinners even though it created a scandal amongst the religious leaders of the day. The thing is that the religious leaders can not separate the difference between accepting someone as a person and accepting the sins of those persons, and this is exacerbated in the the dividing line between religious belief and political belief is being blurred by many of these leaders.
First off, selling a wedding cake to a gay couple has nothing to do with accepting gay marriage. No one else going in to buy a cake has to pass a test before being allowed to buy one. If someone came in and wanted a wedding cake for their two cats (so they could stop living in cat sin together), is the baker going to refuse on the grounds that cats can not be married in the eyes of the church, or is the baker just going to laugh and humor the kooky cat lady? Is the baker being a hypocrite for refusing service only to gay customers while accepting anyone else?
Second, let's say hypothetically that this is a Christian church, there is no religious edict or teaching against selling a wedding cake to a gay couple, so there is no religious freedom being suppressed here. The baker is not being forced to officiate at a gay marriage, not being forced to engage in any gay activities, not being forced to sin in any way whatsoever.
What is happening is that some groups can not keep distinct their religious beliefs from their political beliefs and their cultural beliefs. They're as mad as hell at gay marriage being legalized so that they're using a knee-jerk reaction against it and falsely claiming it is about their own religious beliefs being violated.
I always order out.
However under the law as it is written, I think I would lose any lawsuit if the restaurant refused to serve me. All the restaurant has to do is declare to the court that giving me service me would violate a religious belief of either the owners or anyone working there.
MBLA is an organization advocating for a very harmful act to be made legal. There's no way to equate that with a normal advocacy group.
But if it were me in the PR firm, I would refuse but not on religious grounds. There is nothing here about free expression of religion, that's just being used an excuse to be bigoted towards gay, a knee jerk response created to the legalization of gay marriages. There is nothing in any of my religious texts that says I must refuse service to certain groups of people. On the contrary, the religious texts I've read point in the opposite direction, and the founders associated with known and despised sinners.
But where are there any religious beliefs in any mainstream religion that forbid an employee of Joe's lawnmower service to refuse to fix a lawnmower of a gay person, or that of an atheist, communist, etc.? What "on the basis of religion" is this? It most certainly is not Christianity.
Now what if the coffee shop clerk (my religions prevents me from calling them "baristas") is harming business by giving a religious test to everyone who makes an order, so that he only serves those with the proper belief system (no gays or lawyers). Should that employee be fired or reassigned to floor mopping duties, without that being a violation of their religious expression of freedom?
So what does your choice with religious expression have to do with their choice of a private lifestyle that doesn't affect you in any way? Show me the religious texts your religion has that disallows making cupcakes for a gay weddings. Now there are religious texts that would support not doing commerce with any outsiders, but those relatively rare and small sects generally don't do business with the public and they were not high on the list of supporters for this bill.
This is most certainly not a Christian rights issue in any way. There may be scriptures that seem strongly to forbid homosexual activity, but there are also scripture sthat are against remarriage after divorce, premarital sex even by straight people, allowing women to teach during church services, and so forth. Yet this "religious rights" bill did not gain steam before when atheists or Hindus wanted to buy a wedding cake from a Christian baker, or for a racially mixed couple, or if the bride was previously divorced, or an unmarried couple wanted to buy a loaf of bread, etc. No, this issue showed up in response to gay marriage being legalized.
There is nothing whatsoever in this bill that protects actual religious freedoms.
Why not tell me which religion it is that disallows talking to gays, backing cupcakes for gay weddings, and so forth? There certainly is no backing for this in the predominant religion of Indiana. What religious beliefs then are being protected here? No one is being asked to commit any sins. The first ammendment rights of free expression of religion and free speech are not given additional protections by this bill and were not in any danger without this bill.
Don't be silly, Jesus was this white dude from America who voted for Goldwater.