Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

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).

×

Comment: Re:"principles our nation was founded on" (Score 1) 899

Then you think that no law should be based on religious belief; when in fact all law is.

I cannot keep up with the contortion of intellectual dishonesty required to type that sentence with a straight face. I don't think you're lying to me and that you really believe this, but I equally believe that you're lying to yourself. Have a nice day and best of luck in your future endeavors.

Comment: Re:"principles our nation was founded on" (Score 1) 899

"Separation of church and state", as a specific quote or concept, is nowhere in the founding legal documents of the United States.

It was no less than Thomas Jefferson who said:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

Next, your strawman:

It's use did not create prohibition against religious expression.

Correct. Still doesn't. You're legally entitled to say "blacks are of the devil" (or whites for that matter). Go ahead! No government agency will stop you. However, you're not allowed to discriminate based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce (court-upheld interpretation: pretty much anywhere).

No one believes that any of our rights are unlimited. You can speak your opinion, but you can't yell fire in a theater. You can bear arms, but don't expect to own a nuclear bomb. You can sincerely believe that whites are a superior species to blacks, but you don't get to own, kill, intimidate, lynch, or otherwise harm a black guy, regardless of your vile beliefs. This isn't something I'm making up out of whole cloth, but well-established and widely accepted interpretation of Federal law.

Documents which govern the FEDERAL government do not necessarily apply to State or Local governments.

Read your Constitution, son. The 14th amendment says:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This codified previous Constitutional supremacy thoughts by explicitly stating that States don't get to write laws violating the Constitution or selectively affording privileges to one group and not another.

Comment: Re:"principles our nation was founded on" (Score 1) 899

Except we've decided as a country that there are certain ways it's not OK to be an asshole, particularly when it's because the other person is black, female, Muslim, etc. I did not advocate for restricting free speech. I'm advocating for what law already says regarding other minority classes: feel free to speak your mind, but you shouldn't get to act against gay people any more than you're allowed to act against black people.

I'm dyed-in-the-wool small-l libertarian (and a registered large-L), but I'm horrified at the idea of passing laws to explicitly protect the "right" to discriminate against minorities. "First they came ..." and all that; we shouldn't be looking for new and creative ways to crap on our neighbors.

Comment: Re:"principles our nation was founded on" (Score 1) 899

You mean the case where the court ruled very narrowly that atheism should be afforded the same legal respect as religions when ensuring the rights of people holding those opinions? You would be hard pressed to choose a case less helpful to your viewpoint.

Comment: Re:So doe sthis mean I can... (Score 1) 899

You may be unaware but there are people who live outside of the US

So you're not American and you're unfamiliar with American law, but feel compelled to comment on a case involving one particular American state. Allow me to give you a quick introduction: your opinion is explicitly opposed to American case law. Feel free to speculate as much as you'd care to, but understand that from a US point of view, you are completely wrong.

Comment: Re:"principles our nation was founded on" (Score 1) 899

No where does it separate the state from being effected by religion.

Are ye daft, son? That's exactly what it says: religion cannot become the basis for law. It is literally impossible for my religion to write laws without prohibiting your free exercise thereof; that's what laws do.

In fact the way the courts have ruled that recognition of any religion by any governmental agent, is a defacto establishment of atheism as a state religion.

IHBT. Sigh. I hope you're trolling anyway, because I'd hate to think that an adult could pack that much accidental ignorance into a single sentence. No courts have ruled that way, and atheism cannot be a religion (any more than my lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy establishes me as an "aTooth-Fairyist").

Here is a law professor agreeing that racist speech is protected speech, i.e. being an asshole to people.

You can say asshole things to people, but there are enumerated acts of assholery that are explicitly illegal. You have the freedom of speech, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says it ends at the cash register.

Comment: Re:So doe sthis mean I can... (Score 3, Insightful) 899

I would say go ahead. Refuse to service whoever you want for whatever reason you want, it's your right and should remain your right whether you run a business or not.

Jesus fucking Christ. What backwoods school did you go to that didn't teach American History? The rules you're protesting have been the law of the land for 51 years now and somehow we've persevered. Your opinion is wrong. We took a vote and decided, almost half a century ago. You lost.

Yes, I'm angry. I'm having a hard time believing the among of ignorant bigotry I've seen pouring into Slashdot very recently. Where the hell did you guys come from? Were you here all along, and just recently felt brave enough to come out of your hateful little closet?

Comment: Re:a question (Score 1) 899

I ask this honestly: would you have used the same argument when "those people" were blacks who didn't believe in "separate but equal", or is this your new opinion that only applies to gay citizens? Suppose I own a hamburger stand, that I am a white man, and that I dislike blacks and gays. By your words, it would seem that you'd be OK with me selling hamburgers to white men but not black men. If I am incorrect, what distinction do you draw between a black man and a gay man that would compel me to do business with the former but not require me to serve the latter?

Comment: Re:"principles our nation was founded on" (Score 2, Insightful) 899

Its so clear then please point out in the constitution where it says "separation of church and state." I'll wait go and find it.

It's right next to "freedom of speech", which I'd lay down cash that you claim to cherish.

Grownups understand that things like "freedom of speech" and "separation of church and state" are phrases that refer to an enormous body of legal rulings that collectively establish and define those concepts. Grownups also recognize that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", and that a law keeping you from being an asshole to people you don't like is not oppressing your religious rights.

Comment: Re:Wrong target (Score 2) 56

by Just Some Guy (#49358493) Attached to: Google Loses Ruling In Safari Tracking Case

The target should be Apple not Google.

That's a stupendous way to end software development overnight. Yes, Apple had a bug. All software has bugs. They clearly intended for a different outcome and surely never expected Google to actively attack it.

Of the two, Apple made a mistake but acted with good intentions (at least on the surface, but there's no point going full tinfoil because then there's no point having a conversation about it). Google acted maliciously, and if someone's going to be held accountable for this then it should be them.

In before "lol fanboy": I would say exactly the opposite if, say, iCloud.com exploited a bug (not a feature: a bug) in Chrome to do the same thing. In this specific case, Apple seems to have acted honorably and Google unhonorably.

Comment: Re:python and java (Score 1) 485

by Just Some Guy (#49338871) Attached to: No, It's Not Always Quicker To Do Things In Memory

Python's string library isn't remotely what I'd call "overweight", but its strings are immutable. Some algorithms that are quick in other languages are slow in Python, and some operations that are risky in other languages (like using strings for hash keys) are trivial (and threadsafe) in Python. But regardless of the language involved, it's always a good idea to have a bare minimum of knowledge about it before you do something completely stupid.

"Pull the trigger and you're garbage." -- Lady Blue

Working...