Is the part about being exempt from this law if you have a theme park still in the bill? I know at one point they added a bit where if you owned/operated a theme park you weren't subject to these rules so Disney and whatnot didn't have to worry about it.

I wonder what you'll say when you realize that founder does not mean current owner and that PIA was sold a couple years back to Cape something or other.

Because real criminals have hearts and care too right?

Are you saying I can just make stupid assumptions and take any company to court because I believed the phishing email promising me money was real and sent by them therefor I'm owed real money because? logic? Who's to say these didn't come from a hired third party? What if these were real phishing emails? Do you really think a proper phishing email would give one lick of crap about what you think you're owed or are you stupid enough to think criminals sending real phishing emails all the time care deeply about their victims and would never do something like this during these tough times?

How well did that work out for France when they tried it a few years back? Oh right, the news companies complained that suddenly their views plunged by something around 25%+ after they were removed from search results by Google.

What I want to ask is the same people who don't want to wear masks seem perfectly content with wearing other clothing and would probably flip their shit if they saw someone walking around nude. So why is mandatory clothing acceptable but a mask not?

You can disable this with a userChrome.css file, yes we shouldn't have to do it but at least it's a workaround.