The scenario with a bag of bagels isn't one of the ones causing an issue, so as an example it doesn't apply. That type of transaction is fine - that the buyer is gay or whatever is irrelevant, it has no bearing on the transaction, it has no reason to come up. It'd be quite a stretch to say that by selling them some bagels you are endorsing them in any way.
Indiana's senate bill 101 does not make it clear that it does not apply in this case (I'll grant you it does not make much clear at all though). Do you have a reliable source that explains why this case is not relevant?
But what if my chuch/religion says that gay marriage is okay? Shouldn't the government stay out of it?
The problem is the government is outsourcing of who can get special tax status and other benefits to religions. A religious wedding should have no legal consequence whatsoever. Only the government should decide who enters a partnership with whom. Whether you call that partnership "marriage" or something else like "civil union" to appease the religious types is of little importance.
Note that it would be fine to have the religious organisations handle your civil union paperwork to make things as transparent as possible, as long as you can file the exact same parperwork directly with the government, and as long as that paperwork is the only thing recognized by the government. But having the law recognize the religious notion of marriage and civil unions separately introduces unneeded complexity and opportunities for inconsistencies.
On the other side, it seems like you have the government forcing people not just to tolerate - but to actively celebrate - something that is deeply abhorrent to them.
How is being forbidden from refusing to sell a bag of bagels to anyone who's polite and pays being forced to actively celebrate same-sex marriage?
I do not believe that it is discrimination to refuse to take the money and provide services to someone who wants to you to make a cake for their same-sex wedding.
What about refusing to sell a bag of bagels to a customer on the basis he's gay? My understanding of the law is that it would legalize that. Can you still claim that would not be discrimination?
What of "freedom of speech"? This right says that you have the right to have and express any opinion you choose. Where you are "free" to say something, you are not free from the consequences of what you say. There ARE limits to this freedom too. The classic "yelling fire in a crowded theater" comes to mine, as does inciting riots. Now, lets discuss freedom of religion. I've never said there are "no limits" to what you can do in the name of religion in this country. There ARE limits.
And yet while you'd be the first to get up in arms if a shopkeeper refused to sell you bagels on the basis of your religion, you're the one claiming that forbidding you from doing so on the basis of a customer being gay would infringe on your freedom of religion! So forgive me for getting the impression that you're employing double standards there and not seeing what kind of restrictions you're willing to accept to your freedom of religion.
Oh, and I'd like to point out that the law we are discussing was passed and signed into law by the FEDERAL government way back during Clinton's terms in office, was also adopted by 20 individual states including Illinois where B. Obama was serving at the time (and offered no objections to at the time).
So? Is that supposed to magically make legalizing discrimination a good thing?
The only reason we are discussing this in Indiana is political theater....
No, the reason we're discussing this is that many people find it incredible that there are still some, including high ranking politicians in your country, who would claim in this day and age that discrimination is good. Sure you're the first one to say that discrimination based on religion is wrong and you even concede that discrimination based on race and sex is illegal, but to you discriminating on other criteria not being explicitly outlawed means it's morally ok? So discriminating against albinos is fine. Against blondes, absolutely no problem. Against single mothers? Sure. Against gays? A duty? Have you really learned nothing from history?
I have better things to do than argue about your definition of what cannot be religious freedom in your view, because in reality your framework of reason is really more of an authoritarian "Government knows best" solution that is not about preserving freedom, but about something else....
Oh sure. Claim all others really want is a dictatorship when it is you who wants to put a new law on the books, pose as the victim when it is you who wants to victimize others. That makes total sense.
Let me rephrase because I think you missed the point. Discriminations are generally wielded by a majority against a minority. Your argument that we should let the market decide makes no sense: the majority will not feel the impact of a minority of their customers going elsewhere and thus will not have any reason to change their behavior. So it's a hypocritical way of say minorities should continue to be discriminated against "until the problem goes away".
And here are some parts of the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US helped draft, that you don't seem to be aware of:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
We either do or we don't have religious freedom here and if that freedom doesn't extend into how people can conduct business and what activities they choose to be involved in and what they refuse to do, then we really DON'T have the freedom,
So it seems your view is that religious freedom must trump every other freedom or right. But that cannot work. Not everyone follows the same religion (if any). Ensuring that is the whole point of religious freedom. But each religion has its own idea of what its followers must do. Some say unmarried women who have sex must be stoned. According to your argument, making that illegal would be denying these people their religious freedom. Sure you may not agree with their religious mores, but you cannot question or deny theirs while refusing your right to discriminate based on yours to be questioned or made illegal.
the only way out is to hold that religious freedom must stop where other people's freedoms start. That means the right to go about their live peacefully, and not to be discriminated against.
Just like doctors should not be allowed to discriminate for any reason, people running stores open to the general public should not be allowed to discriminate. If selling to some categories of the population goes against their religion then they should run a private store, one that requires a membership card from their congregation or something, or they should find themselves another job where they can choose their clients.
We have government interfering with religion which is expressly forbidden in our constitution..
I think you were more specifically thinking of the Bill of Rights. It's a good document but it's not the absolute unambiguous answer you make it out to be. For instance, the first amendment, the one you care about because it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", immediately continues with "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Well, lots of religions consider blasphemy to be a religious crime and want it to be forbidden and punished. But that would go against the very same amendment's protection of freedom of speech. So which is it? It seems like according to you religious freedom should trump freedom of speech but I'm not sure your fellow citizens would agree with you on that, or that you'd really like to live in such a country.
Don't like it? Sorry. Get the constitution changed, but I warn you that you won't like the results.
Don't need to. I already leave in a country where discrimination is illegal. Works just fine. Thank you very much.
Then there are things which you CAN discriminate on.
If you don't like who a business [...] refuses service to, you are free to take your business elsewhere and share your views with your friends, neighbors or even the random person on the street if they will listen.
Let the market decide and if the majority of people think like you and take their business some other place, so be it. Just live your life and do your business and let others do the same. Seems like freedom to me.
Wonderful community you want to build. One where minorities can be ostracised, denied service by the majority, forced to either supply themselves from shaddy sources who will overchage them or to die or leave if they can. Members of that holier than thou majority can try to hide behind the veil of religious mores all they want. The truth is it is they who don't have one shred of morality.
3. [...]no moving parts. SSD for boot,
As far as I can tell this is speculation on your part. Past a certain weight people are not going to throw the box around. As a heater it's also quite possible that it will be fastened to a wall or something too. Not that it matters anyway.
3. The article says that the supplier supplies power. Whatever cable they use for that can easily have a fibre built in for data.
That however is totally unrealistic. First they say they'll pay for power, not that they will lay their own electric cable all the way to the customer to bring power. That would be incredibly stupid, wasteful and so expensive they would never get a positive return on investment. So they will at most install a separate electric meter at the customer's premises, and then hook up their machine to a regular power outlet. So then this fiber you want to put in the power cable will have nowhere to plug into. And again, given that most houses/apartments don't have fiber yet it, requiring a fiber connection would limit them to just a fraction of the potential market, or would force them to lay their own fiber which again is incredibly expensive (but at least it would not be redundant if they manage to resell it to regular ISPs). But it's more likely they will simply reuse their customer's Internet connection (remember data caps are mostly a US thing). So really what this tells us is that they will limit themselves to workloads which don't require too much communication. The ideal case would be CPU/GPU intensive computations like Folding@Home, SETI, GIMPS, etc.
There is no energy shortage.
I think you meant to say there is no power shortage. However we only have 56 years of proven reserves of oil, add another 4 years counting oil sands. To me that qualifies as a looming shortage of one of our primary source of energy. And that's all assuming zero increase in energy use, and as a corollary that about 85% of the population keeps on using 5 to 10 times less energy per person than Americans. So saying there's no energy shortage is a bit optimistic.
That said I'll grant you that although we only have 58 years of proven natural gas reserves, at least discoveries seem to be keeping pace. We'll see how that goes once the oil runs out however. Also while we can switch to other energy sources like wind and solar, they require an important initial investment of energy which will be hard once we start feeling the crunch.
Climate change is due to pollution, not overpopulation.
That's disingenuous when it's caused by a byproduct of our main sources of energy. CO2 is not something you can filter out of your car exhaust or that we can easily take out of power plants.
So you think we need to get rid of 6 out of every 7 people. Will you be first in line?
No. He's saying that whether we want it or not the world population will go down to 1 billion, either in an orderly fashion of our own choosing; or through famine, disease and war over resources.
While I don't agree with his 1 billion mark, it's obvious the population cannot increase indefinitely. Fortunately it's expected that it will plateau at or before the 10 billion mark. But there's still the question of whether there's enough resources (energy, drinking water, ores, etc) to sustain a population of 10 billion, all living decent lives (unlike now), indefinitely.
Mod this up! I've been asking the same questions for years now and still haven't seen any answers. I've also come to the same conclusions as AC.
Studies are not hard to find: type 'weather impact of wind turbines' in Google and the first link will be Wikipedia which will point you to five studies on the subject!
To summarize the current set of studies don't find a significant impact but more detailed analyzes will tell us more. But we've been building sky-scrapers and other tall structures for a century now and have yet to see any impact of these. Also wind-turbines are about 150 meters high when our atmosphere is 20,000 meters thick. Finally taking down wind-turbines is much easier than scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere. So overall I have a hard time feeling concerned.
Today the planet will generate 6,000 calories for everyone on the planet. You need 2,000, so *using today's agriculture* we could support 21 billion people.
You're forgetting all the the food that is thrown away by producers and then supermarkets because it would not sell, then all the food people buy and let go bad, and then all that they put in their plate and then throw away because they're full. So to get this 2000 calories intake farmers need to produce at least 4000. But probably you think that solving this issue is trivial.
However, a considerable amount of currently used land is used extremely inefficiently.
A no less considerable amount does not lend itself to standard agricultural practices either because of the terrain or the lack of water for irrigation. The 'efficient land use' also relies on a massive use of fossil fuel based fertilizers. But you probably think we have an inexhaustible supply of fossil fuels.
And of course the system as a whole is unbelievably inefficient because we have a meat-heavy diet. [...] And even our choice of meat is terrible; beef is far, far less efficient to produce than chicken.
Sure. Convincing everyone to stop eating beef, let alone most forms of meat, is totally realistic. And having to go down this path is absolutely not the sign that there's more people than the earth can support given our current lifestyle.
And since food costs for the average Canadian have dropped from 40% of their take-home pay to under 9% [...] we clearly have significant amounts of money we could use to pay for it,
Great! 0.5% of the population can afford increased food costs! Even if we ignore disparities among their populations and extend your reasoning to all developed countries we end up with at most a billion people. Do you even care about the remaining 85%?
So maybe the earth can sustain 7 billion people but all your arguments are naive and totally off the mark.