Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

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:WWJD? (Score 1) 760

by Kjella (#49375567) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory

Trust me -- the small business bakery market will weed out those who want to miss great business opportunities and/or sales just because they don't want both figures on a cake wearing pants.

That depends on how much of peer pressure/boycott there is from your local church congregation and extended to their members to not shop at "gay friendly" stores and buy at stores that refuse gays service. From what I've understood the most successful such peer pressure in the US has been to make mainstream outlets "family friendly". Despite there obviously being a big market for adult material, they've managed to force adult stores out of malls, keep mainstream cinemas showing adult-only movies, video game stores from selling adult only-titles and so on simply by refusing to shop in any business that would touch it with a ten foot pole. You don't think the same can happen to a cake shop? I do.

Comment: Re:"principles our nation was founded on" (Score 1) 760

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) 760

"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) 760

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) 760

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) 760

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:Good luck... (Score 1) 60

by Kjella (#49374063) Attached to: India Mandates Use of Open Source Software In Government

The short story from any seasoned admin perspective: 'Whatever platform *I* know the tools for is better than the platform that I don't know the tools for'. This applies to all the parent posts. The Windows guy thinks Linux isn't enterprise ready because he doesn't know the tools. The Linux guy is shocked to hear this because Windows in his experience is a pain in the ass.

Of course leaving out the small detail that basically every managed Windows desktop uses AD and Windows admins either know it or they don't. If I search for tools to centralized manage Linux machines, I get dozens of alternatives in the top 50 hits. Like with everything else on Linux, there is no single standard.

Comment: Re:"principles our nation was founded on" (Score 1) 760

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:"Knowledge-based" questions are really bad (Score 1) 209

by pla (#49374001) Attached to: Sign Up At Before Crooks Do It For You
I treat such questions as passwords and never put real info in them. If they're basing it on info they think they already have, they should be slapped hard.

This, so much this! It really annoys me that sooo many sites all ask questions from the same pool of stupid biographical data, thereby making guessing them almost trivial for people like vengeful ex wives and rogue IT staff at any random website that collects password reset questions.

Mother's maiden name? "handlebar mustache"
First pet's name? "furious green ideas"

Granted, I don't tend to pick what I'd call really all that "secure" passwords for them, but I sure as hell don't give them real answers. Hell, half the questions they ask, I don't even know the right answer - "College roommate's home town"??? Seriously? WTF, I couldn't stand the guy, you can sum up the entirety of our conversation with "can you please wash your bedding this month?" and "I told you you couldn't make bacon in a hot-pot!"

Comment: Re:So doe sthis mean I can... (Score 1) 760

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) 760

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:Please ready Hobby Lobby before commenting (Score 1) 760

by l2718 (#49372701) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory
Excellent question:

WTF are the air quotes for?

The word right is used today to denote two very different kinds of things. People talk about the "right to freedom of speech" but also about "the right to a living wage". Unfortunately, these are two very different kinds of legal arrangements.

Rights of the first kind (exemplified by the freedom of speech) are negative rights: rights to be free from interference by others. You can do as you please as long as you don't harm anyone. Respecting and protecting such rights is, in my opinion, a principal function of government.

"Rights" of the second kind (exemplified by the "right" to have your employer buy you a specific form of health insurance) are positive rights: they amount to an imposition on someone else to do something for you. In other words, they cannot be fulfilled without infringing someone's negative right to be free from interference. Positive rights are properly aspirational statements ("wouldn't it be great if people could have X even if they don't have X now?"), and are called "rights" as a rhetorical device: since we all agree that negative rights ought to be protected by the government, calling something a "right" creates the impression that it should be protected too.

When speaking about positive "rights", I use the word in quotes to highlight this distinction, and avoiding the rhetorical trap set by the proponents of such "rights".

In the case at hand, the employees of Hobby Lobby have every right (without quotes) to use their salary to buy contraception. They don't (and shouldn't) have the "right" to have Hobby Lobby buy them contraception. The owners of Hobby Lobby (acting jointly through the company) have a right to freedom of thought, and a right to dispose of their property (Hobby Lobby and its money) as they please, including by refusing to buy someone contraception.

The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir