A Muslim slaughterhouse can refuse to slaughter pigs. However, they can't just refuse to slaughter pigs that belong to Mormons.
A black or Jewish printer can have a "no racist posters" policy, and deny racist posters. The KKK members could still have non-racist things printed. (ignoring the fact that KKK membership isn't likely to ever be a protected class).
Similarly, a person can have a, "No gay cakes" policy, and still have to sell a generic, "congratulations" cake that they normally make.
And a pharmacist can choose to not dispense certain drugs, and then be fired by their pharmacy because of refusing to do their job.
tl;dr - There's a difference in refusing to do certain things and refusing to serve certain groups of people.
Unless forced into it by some religious group, of course.
Back in the day, there was *one* discussion forum: Usenet.
Ah, yes, I remember those days.
I was posting on multiple BBSes and occasionally using FIDOnet.
People who don't earn as much can take advantage of various credits and services, and oftentimes don't out of a sense of pride or fairness.
I view your argument as splitting hairs in a way that's entirely irrelevant; anyone can take advantage of government rules, and not everyone does.
The battle scenes made sense. How could that possibly be a Michael Bay film?
You're right; if we can point to 5 instances where a cm of styrofoam would've (or did) make the difference between a light injury and a very severe one, we should encourage people to wear helmets.
I'm glad you're on board with my campaign to make helmets mandatory while in moving motor vehicles.
Oh, and everyone under 18 and over 50 will have to wear one at all times. Those between can take them off before going to bed.
It's the only sane response.
I know that Brave New World is a dystopian novel, but it's a world where people know what they're really good at, can take happy drugs that don't have side effects, get to keep their youthful abilities and looks for most of their life, and if they really object to the structure of society, they can move to anywhere on the planet that better suits them.
Mind you, I don't know if I'd do all that well in such a society, but I don't know that I'd do all that well in Japanese society, either.
Anyway, since the book focuses on a couple of people who don't like a highly-structured society, and a person who decides that, rather than move to wherever he'd prefer, it's best to whip himself a lot, I can see that it's still a depressing read.
For me, though, 1984 was so much harder to take, as I kept mentally attempting to find ways out for the character and failing.
So you're saying that the Red Cross should have a lean, hand-to-mouth budget, then give lots of money to financial institutions in the hopes that said financial institutions will always be there when needed, immediately after a disaster. Then spend money hand-over-fist because of getting lots of money, then return to a lean, hand-to-mouth budget.
And, somehow, this is better than being financially prepared for a disaster, spending only on what they know will be helpful in a given instance, regardless of how much the instance makes the news, and saving any windfall for the next disaster.
Some people from Archive Team (archiveteam.org) are working on it, which means that, most likely, some amount of data will eventually end up on archive.org.
Still, it'd be nice if AOL would say, "Here's all the data we have. Please save it." and present it to archive.org, rather than depend on a group of rogue archivists to not miss anything.
Of course you can (protest a company while buying the company's product). It makes you a hypocrite though. You don't have to buy an iPhone. You don't have to eat a Big Mac.
In no way does it make you a hypocrite. Saying, "You shouldn't use Apple products", then using Apple products makes you a hypocrite. Saying, "I like Apple and their products but wish they'd stop using slave labor" is logically no different than saying, "I like my wife but I wish she'd stop smoking.".
My dad is/was a preacher, and one of the things I learned growing up is that funeral home directors tend to have a great sense of humor.
Think about it -- in order to do the job well, the director has to accept death as a part of life, help other people through a trying time, and stay sane despite that.
So, of _course_ the good morticians laugh a lot.
TSA agents, on the other hand, have to serve a giant bureaucracy, do highly questionable things to people who are almost certainly innocent, and justify a job where they almost certainly will never actually save or change lives in a good way.
How can they possibly avoid being insane, power-hungry sociopaths?
Does Disney have permission from the original authors for The Jungle Book, Snow White, Pinocchio, Song of the South, Treasure Island, Alice in Wonderland, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Treasure Planet, and The Princess and The Frog?
If you don't like the terms of the contract, DO NOT sign the contract. It's really that simple.
If you don't want mandatory arbitration, then don't use that credit card.
If you don't want to pay for ESPN3, then don't use that internet provider.
If the contract were a contract of equals, where the consumer could say, "No, I don't like this portion", cross it out, and negotiate further, then I'd agree with you.
In a world where "contract" means "list of things we may change at any time, and you must abide by, because there's no reasonable alternative", well, even if you're right, it's not "really that simple".
Perhaps they could perform in a telework model
I think they're already doing that. Well, if askaway.info is the sort of thing you mean. I guess that's Wisconsin's portion of the system, but libraries throughout the country are involved.