Sure you can, if there are rules in place for penalizing you for being mean. And a person can agree to abide by those rules.

Dream on, anonymous coward. There is NO WAY IN HELL that any of the current or prospective franchise owners would ever agree under any circumstances to any clause like that. Do you think they would ever subject themselves to the possibility of losing their capital gains on the whim of public opinion's judgment of something they said in private? Besides, even if they did (which they wouldn't) that would be the mother of all court battles to determine if the contract term applied. And it would NEVER be invoked again.

Non sequitur. But if you wish to open a new front. That is another issue: defining who is a protected class. If the CEO of Mozilla was a protected class (i.e. gay) and was fired for his beliefs/acceptance of homosexuality the political left would be up in arms. Yet the same left calls for the head of another for his personal beliefs whether or not there is any impact on his work life. For some reason, you fail to see the analogy.

I ditched my "POTS landline" provider in 2007. I paid them extra for unlimited long distance bringing my total bill up to about $65 per month. When I started getting billed for metered calls because "local calling plus" areas didn't count as long distance I ditched them with extreme prejudice. I have finally settled on Voipo which costs me about $7 per month for unlimited calling and wouldn't have AT&T back if they paid me. Those bastards charged me that much just for caller ID. When Hurricane Ike blew through a few years ago, I lost my old voip service for a few days, but my cell continued working just fine. I don't feel the need to pay for unnecessary service on the off chance that the I might see another inland hurricane.

Now my voip and Internet costs combined are less than what I paid AT&T for just phone. And that was 2007 dollars.

No, this WGA check is utterly unnecessary for the users and customers, it is only there because MS thinks that helps protect themselves from piracy.

Lucky for Microsoft, they succeeded in making WGA totally obsolete. They finally designed a pirate-proof operating system. They made one that was so shitty, nobody would bother pirating it.

No it's not the only difference. How about:

1) You can't add an administrative user without using the metro user app to create the user and follow up by switching to the desktop app to promote the user to administrator. How stupid is that?

2) No more safe mode with F8. What happens when Microsoft Windows update installs a fscked up video driver (like it did to one of the machines I worked on) and it no longer boots with video? 8.x has to boot to working WINDOWS to force a reboot into safe mode. How stupid is that? I guess we'll never need to go to safe mode unless Windows is working properly. Sheesh

3) That God awful abortion of "fast shutdown and startup." Good luck getting rid of root kits and virii if you don't know the tricks to get Windows to actually reboot the system.

4) Windows 8.x shills and apologists always point out that installing "classic shell" or "start8" makes it usable. Why in God's name should an end user be forced to install third party software to repair the functionality intentionally gutted by Microsoft? The last Lenovo I worked on came with a replacement start menu app preinstalled. Of course, the Windows 8.1 update removed it. Which is 8.x? A half-ass desktop OS or a half-ass tablet OS?

I could go on, but you get the picture. Windows 8.x's user interface and user experience are a piece of shit. I don't care if it plays games or copies files faster. I wouldn't pay for it if it was $15. I wouldn't use it if it was free. Every time I am handed a 8.x machine, I think there is no way it could suck more than I have already seen. Every single time, it proves me wrong.

Wow. Sucks to be you. When I switched electric providers from my local concern in 2011, my savings was enough that it amounted to a free month of electricity per year over the old billing. Six months into my contract my new provider offered me a seven year fixed rate a half cent lower than my going rate. Spot rates may drop lower due to natural gas prices dropping but I am still very near the current bottom and I can budget for the next seven years. My local utility still maintains the lines and I haven't noticed any decrease in response times.

The funny thing is, my local utility finally got the picture and started offering more competitive rates to win back their customers that left in droves. Too late for me. Maybe I'll talk to them in six years.

From Wikipedia:

Menacing (in some states known as brandishing) is a violent crime in most state jurisdictions of the United States. Although the wording and degrees of offense vary slightly from state to state, the criminal act of menacing generally consists of displaying a weapon to a person with the intention of threatening them with bodily harm from said weapon.

Exactly what proof do you have that Zimmerman displayed his weapon with intent to harm do you have? Any "sane" criminal displaying his weapon would not have taken such an ass beating before finishing off Martin. And if Martin witnessed him displaying his weapon, do you think he would have focused beating him about the head or instead focused on taking that weapon away? Yet there was only a single shot, at a 2 - 4 inch range, straight through, slightly left to right, level, and forensically consistent with Martin on top, leaning over Zimmerman. And NO EVIDENCE Martin ever touched the gun. No DNA. No fingerprints. And no powder burns on his hands.

Following is not menacing and not illegal. I do not understand why emotion has completely displaced an objective evaluation of the indisputable forensic and physical evidence. The prosecution could only present he said/she said "evidence" and conjecture. None of the physical evidence was consistent with their version of the story. Face facts. What Zimmerman did was not illegal and was consistent with self defense.

Because he wasn't required. He couldn't be compelled. Obviously there was no need given how weak the prosecutor's case was.

He did NOT disobey police. Despite the misinformation in the news, there was NEVER, an order not to follow. Secondly, it was not the police, it was the emergency dispatch which had been called on the non-emergency number. He was asked if he was following, and when he replied he was told "We don't need you to do that." CLEARLY NOT AN ORDER! In fact, the dispatcher himself testified he was not legally authorized to give an order. His suggestion was to protect himself from liability. This was his testimony.

Finally, the media, most of the media "commentators", and probably you are terribly misinformed on the timing of the so-called order. He was already out of his truck when the emergency dispatch made the statement. You could hear his the door chimes on the "911" tape when he exited his truck.

The "facts" that many people have used to make up their minds are erroneous. The media has spread this misinformation and is in a large way responsible for the "polarization" of arm chair quarterbacks calling for Zimmerman's head despite the fact what he did is clearly not illegal. After all, he was acquitted by a jury who actually LISTENED to all the arguments and evidence without filtering it through the media hysteria machines.

Assuming "get into a struggle" is code for me attacking you, pinning you to the ground, and pound your head against the ground.

His defense played both sides of "stand your ground". They claimed he was attacked and entitled to use it

Your ignorance and bias is showing. "They" made no such claim. Stand your ground was not part of the defense. Self defense was the claim. The prosecution raised the red herring that George Zimmerman was familiar with it from his criminal justice classwork in order to try to infer that he could tailor his defense based upon it. The problem with that tactic is that the defense made no such claim.

The bulk of the prosecution's case boiled down to emotion and speculation, pure and simple. Unfortunately, you bought it, lock, stock and barrel. (Gun reference intentional)

And exactly what constituted "instigating a confrontation"? When I am followed by an armed store detective, do I have a "legal right" to beat him to death? Clearly, the store detective is no more than a wannabe cop. Maybe he is doing what he thinks is right. Maybe he is profiling me.

The biggest gripe I have had with this case from the beginning is the incredible bias due to the tragedy of the situation. Some people are completely unable to remove emotion from their judgment.