I think that would depend on exactly what you said.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
The NSA aren't bad guys or good guys. They simply are. A wrench is neither bad nor good it's just a tool to remove a bolt or nut. The NSA is a tool used to spy on and analyze people and organizations that are considered a threat by the US government. If they do things that aren't legal you can bet someone very high in the US government authorized it. Probably at the very top.
More like idiots will find a way to kill themselves. Now it's suicide by gate guards.
Good pay, good hours, limited room for advancement.
But it's not like I expect a Dice Slashvertizement to be remotely complete...
If you believe in freedom for everyone involved, then that means everyone. If you believe in forced association, then you want the Jewish deli owner imprisoned or fined or put out of business for discrimination.
Or you don't, because you want to pick and choose which discrimination is OK and which isn't -- micromanaging force to be used for whatever whimsical objective you feel good/bad about on a particular day. No one is ever free to choose any different than you. Penalties for unapproved choices will be severe.
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.
"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.
Poverty doesn't cause it, most likely has to do with poor Nutrition.
Which is why, if I were in charge, Food Stamps would be for Fruits, Veggies, Meat, and Milk only. If you add anything else, it is abused. Cereal? FruitLoops is a cereal, and currently counts as "food".
Of course you're 100% correct. The GP post is typical hand wringing of many (not all) liberals who want EVERYONE to be treated "nice", even as the attackers try to kill people. It is how you get deals with Iran after all.
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
This stupid idea gets floated every few years. It doesn't work, even in theory. Do the math yourself.
I have. No way in hell that is going to work efficiently. 185dB of attenuation from Geosync, best case.
Especially the Congressional Black Caucus
I've never heard a convincing argument for their position.
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.