Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Mixed reaction (Score 1) 317

by Sabriel (#49741323) Attached to: Battle To Regulate Ridesharing Moves Through States

Make it $200/month net, rather than gross?

In Australia, the law is that you aren't considered a commercial taxi service if you only accept money for the cost of the fuel, but you may be considered one if you accept additional money for your time. So even if you gave someone a lift all the way from Cooktown to Perth, and it cost you $600 in fuel and they gave you $600, you'd be in the clear.

Comment: Re:How? (Score 1) 125

You seem to be under a misapprehension that the government cares about obtaining a few dollars from "mom and pop" online businesses in any way, shape or form, when the summary mentions the major targets are multi-million-dollar corporations like Steam and Netflix?

As to how, surely given a minute or two you could come up with at least an inkling of possible ways to check compliance? And perhaps it's possible that the people whose job it is to come up with such methods might devote rather more than a minute or two to the task?

Comment: Re:It's the same old lies from these H1B advocates (Score 1) 611

by Sabriel (#49662521) Attached to: To Laid-Off Southern California Edison Workers: Boo-Hoo

It's "sustainable" only in the sense that a given population of a species can "sustain" a certain population of parasites. That doesn't make it a sustainable ethos for the species itself to indulge in.

> Feel free to disprove that by donating deveral hundred dollars to Nepali relief efforts. Or any international relief effort for that matter.

If GP went and did exactly that, would you (a) admit you were wrong, or (b) change the goalposts?

Comment: Re:And why would that be? (Score 1) 218

by Sabriel (#49469147) Attached to: Legislation Would Force Radio Stations To Pay Royalties

Indeed, and further, I'm trying to understand how "religious and talk stations are exempt" is supposed to be reconciled with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". E.g. per the majority decision by the Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education (1947):

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.

Seriously, how does a specific exemption for religious stations pass Constitutional muster? How are "Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)" not in violation of their oath of office by introducing this bill?

Comment: Re: Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score 1) 653

by Sabriel (#49415843) Attached to: Carly Fiorina Calls Apple's Tim Cook a 'Hypocrite' On Gay Rights

"legal contract between God and them"

There is no such thing. Legal contracts are instruments enforceable via secular government; in the event of a breach, just how is it do you plan to compel the Almighty to appear before the court, let alone execute any punitive measures?

Please do not conflate spiritual activities performed by individuals with secular activities performed by businesses.

No, Im asking why there is a double standard whereby you can "ethically" refuse to patronize a business whose beliefs you disagree with, but they cannot ethically refuse to service you.

You are again conflating individuals with businesses. There is no double standard. A business has no beliefs to exercise because it is a legal fiction, an abstraction given existence by the state rather than by the Almighty. (unless you're claiming that businesses have souls? that they can go to heaven?)

And before you say, "what if the staff personally wish to refuse service", I point out that what they do in their own time is their decision. The state is not forcing them to work for the business. If they want to only make wedding cakes for straights, then they can quit and do that voluntarily without invoking the aegis of government.

Put bluntly, if you kick someone out of your commercial establishment solely because you disagree with their spiritual choices, you are violating their civil rights.

Comment: Re:"Policy construct we've been given" (Score 1) 212

Key allies? You mean 51st states.

When the US government placed Realpolitik above its Constitutional principles, "ally" ceased to mean "friend".

So keep in mind that Snowden didn't screw America's friends; the US government did that much earlier and what's left of it hasn't stopped yet.

Comment: Re:WWJD? (Score 1) 1168

by Sabriel (#49390117) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory

My point is that "free exercise" cuts both ways. You say you should be free not to sell cakes to gays. Gays say they should be free to buy cakes from any cake shop. You want Congress to pass a law that says someone's freedom is more important than someone else's freedom. You want a class system. Congress is constitutionally forbidden to do that, and with good reasons.

The laws of the United States are (supposed to be) founded firmly on a strong and high wall of separation between the Church and the State. If you want to do _business_ in the United States, you're (supposed) to do it with everyone equal under the law.

Otherwise you end up with your temple full of money changers.

Comment: Re:WWJD? (Score 1) 1168

"force a private individual"

What private individual?

When you're at home, you're a private individual. When you're at work, you're a business representative. If you start a business, and you put up a sign out the front that says "Jhon's Cake Shop", and the shop pays its dues as "Jhon's Cake Shop", and the bank account is in the name of "Jhon's Cake Shop", then when some random stranger walks in to buy a cake, they're not asking you to make them a cake, they're asking "Jhon's Cake Shop" to make them a cake.

You don't get to eat your cake and keep it too.

Comment: Re:WWJD? (Score 1) 1168

A group of people walk into a cake shop. One is Jewish. One is Homosexual. One is Colored. One is You.

The United States Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Per the Declaration and the Constitution, these people are Equal before the Law.

If making a cake is an activity performed as part of a publicly-recognized business conducted under the protection of the laws of the land, then the owner must accept all the laws of the land, not just the ones that can be used to serve their selfish interests and fears.

Some say it should be "left up to the business owner". I say that's passive-aggressive douche-baggery by hypocrites who can't admit to their own bigotry.

And if you don't like it, the existence of the First Amendment means that you can speak, assemble and petition for abolishing the First Amendment. I hope you can appreciate the irony.

There is one way to find out if a man is honest -- ask him. If he says "Yes" you know he is crooked. -- Groucho Marx