congressperson votes for the bill, then they will be immediately under investigation as 'an enemy of the state' and attempts by the executive in response to undermine that person's support.
There is no person is either house of Congress, nor the Supreme Court, nor department heads, who is not continuously under investigation by the Obama administration. The result is extortion ( Justice Robert's vote on Obamacare ) or publicity (refer to the Petraeus case.).
The Taliban and similar others claim the right to kill others, and do so. That is an action, and an aggressive one, a clear violation of the actual rights of the victim.
Refusing to do business with someone is refusing to act. Rights are not being violated, even if the law is, even if morality is.
The difference is fundamental and essential. Attempting to equate the two situations is dishonest.
Many years ago, Eric Frank Russell introduced the acronym FI:IW. which stands for "Freedom is: I won't." Freedom is the ability to say "I won't" and make it stick.
Do you discriminate between food and poison? Thieves and clerks? Clergy and murderers? Rapists and teachers? Wisdom and stupidity? Discrimination is a necessity of life.
Only those individuals who are operating a business and only in the operation of that business.
Do you mean a business registered with the government? Strictly speaking, all trades are business. There is no fundamental difference between a child buying a marble at a yard sale and Exxon buying a tanker of petroleum.
Freedom is absence of compulsion. You don't get to pick what you like and call it freedom.
Freedom is not the right answer in each and every case, but it is the proper default and should only be contravened for the most carefully examined and proven reasons.
For example: It is WRONG to refuse to serve black people, law PROPERLY prohibits you from refusing to serve black people, and it IS a restriction on your freedom.
You are attempting to pollute the language for political purposes.
A sole proprietorship is a business, and I've known the owners of some whose business was essentially everything they owned. Their business is for all practical purposes their life. As the owner and often the sole employee, the decisions of that business are the decisions of that person; they are indistinguishable.
The naked evil of your post is summarized in one phrase: Businesses don't get to decide anything.
No, we did not decide. The legislature, courts, and executive of the federal government decided.
You cannot be open to the public except for women.
Within 15 seconds I was able to think of 6 organizations that are sex-restricted, while typing this sentence I thought of 2 others, and all eight are highly respected. I recommend you look for counterexamples before making blanket statements.
This law is a thinly veiled attempt to remove all of the civil rights successes of the last sixty years.
The law is in response to assholes making trouble and causing timid, straight-laced shop-owners to lose heaps of money. Instead of choosing another business to get their goods, the troublemakers insist on bringing grief to one shop.
Furthermore, most of the "civil rights successes of the last sixty years" have to do with race, and race is not an issue of Christianity for any but a very few loonies. This whole subject has come up because a small bunch of homosexuals are trying to make other people miserable.
If she refuses to show her face, I'd immediately assume that like any masked person, she's there to commit a robbery (Halloween excepted, maybe.) A face is how people are quickly identified; hiding the face indicates an attempt to hide identity, for which honest reasons are extremely scarce. And there's nothing honest about Islam when dealing with those outside Islam, it says so in the Koran.
One problem is that some people (known as assholes) try to press the limits. If "kill" is rejected, they'll try "spit on", "beat up", "tar and feather", "torture", "behead", "amputate", etc., etc.. Each time their offensive logo is rejected, they'll sue, particularly if they''re lawyers or know someone willing to do pro-bono work to stir up the shit. Many small businesses don't make much money, and it only takes a couple of lawsuits for an asshole to destroy the life of a small business owner.
It's only been a few months since some jerk sued a bakery that refused to ice a cake with a penis decoration.
"It" is a singular gender-neutral pronoun, although it's rude to apply to a person. "Somebody" can often be used, also "body", "individual", and "person". Technically they're not pronouns, but they do serve as pronouns. I agree that frequent use of "one" is a problem; it sounds stilted.
Sexual orientation is usually not a choice. There are those who claim to be "bisexual": they'll choose a man sometimes, and a women other times. There are also a few who change orientation once over the course of their life (perhaps due to hormone level changes, or multiple bitter experiences with a particular sex. Who knows?) That ability to change indicates a choice.
Somehow, a diet of tequila shooters supplemented with enough quality nutrition to meet the RDAs does not lift the balance out of the "bad food" category. The alcohol will damage your brain and liver, the lemon will eat away your teeth.
Slashdot Mirror
New Orleans and much of the surrounding area is sinking at about one inch a year. There is no permanent fix to this problem.
The reflected oceans waves dissipate and disperse.
So you are the one, the only, "Anonymous Coward". I can use any quote under that heading against you. Too easy.
There is no person is either house of Congress, nor the Supreme Court, nor department heads, who is not continuously under investigation by the Obama administration. The result is extortion ( Justice Robert's vote on Obamacare ) or publicity (refer to the Petraeus case.).
Ron Paul is 79. He may be in good health, but he doesn't look physically robust. I don't think he's up for the effort.
The struggle over civil rights was mostly a struggle over race discrimination, and you are equating that with "ideological differences." Grow a brain.
The Taliban and similar others claim the right to kill others, and do so. That is an action, and an aggressive one, a clear violation of the actual rights of the victim.
Refusing to do business with someone is refusing to act. Rights are not being violated, even if the law is, even if morality is.
The difference is fundamental and essential. Attempting to equate the two situations is dishonest.
Many years ago, Eric Frank Russell introduced the acronym FI:IW. which stands for "Freedom is: I won't." Freedom is the ability to say "I won't" and make it stick.
Do you discriminate between food and poison? Thieves and clerks? Clergy and murderers? Rapists and teachers? Wisdom and stupidity? Discrimination is a necessity of life.
Try saying "Fuck you" to an angry policeman. You'll soon find yourself in jail, bruised, with a lawyer telling you that you have no case.
You've chosen the wrong word. Tyranny would be a better choice.
Do you mean a business registered with the government? Strictly speaking, all trades are business. There is no fundamental difference between a child buying a marble at a yard sale and Exxon buying a tanker of petroleum.
Freedom is absence of compulsion. You don't get to pick what you like and call it freedom.
Freedom is not the right answer in each and every case, but it is the proper default and should only be contravened for the most carefully examined and proven reasons.
For example: It is WRONG to refuse to serve black people, law PROPERLY prohibits you from refusing to serve black people, and it IS a restriction on your freedom.
You are attempting to pollute the language for political purposes.
A sole proprietorship is a business, and I've known the owners of some whose business was essentially everything they owned. Their business is for all practical purposes their life. As the owner and often the sole employee, the decisions of that business are the decisions of that person; they are indistinguishable.
The naked evil of your post is summarized in one phrase: Businesses don't get to decide anything.
You'd be walking on the borderline of being an accessory before the fact to a serious crime.
No, we did not decide. The legislature, courts, and executive of the federal government decided.
Within 15 seconds I was able to think of 6 organizations that are sex-restricted, while typing this sentence I thought of 2 others, and all eight are highly respected. I recommend you look for counterexamples before making blanket statements.
The law is in response to assholes making trouble and causing timid, straight-laced shop-owners to lose heaps of money. Instead of choosing another business to get their goods, the troublemakers insist on bringing grief to one shop.
Furthermore, most of the "civil rights successes of the last sixty years" have to do with race, and race is not an issue of Christianity for any but a very few loonies. This whole subject has come up because a small bunch of homosexuals are trying to make other people miserable.
If she refuses to show her face, I'd immediately assume that like any masked person, she's there to commit a robbery (Halloween excepted, maybe.) A face is how people are quickly identified; hiding the face indicates an attempt to hide identity, for which honest reasons are extremely scarce. And there's nothing honest about Islam when dealing with those outside Islam, it says so in the Koran.
One problem is that some people (known as assholes) try to press the limits. If "kill" is rejected, they'll try "spit on", "beat up", "tar and feather", "torture", "behead", "amputate", etc., etc.. Each time their offensive logo is rejected, they'll sue, particularly if they''re lawyers or know someone willing to do pro-bono work to stir up the shit. Many small businesses don't make much money, and it only takes a couple of lawsuits for an asshole to destroy the life of a small business owner.
It's only been a few months since some jerk sued a bakery that refused to ice a cake with a penis decoration.
"It" is a singular gender-neutral pronoun, although it's rude to apply to a person. "Somebody" can often be used, also "body", "individual", and "person". Technically they're not pronouns, but they do serve as pronouns. I agree that frequent use of "one" is a problem; it sounds stilted.
Sexual orientation is usually not a choice. There are those who claim to be "bisexual": they'll choose a man sometimes, and a women other times. There are also a few who change orientation once over the course of their life (perhaps due to hormone level changes, or multiple bitter experiences with a particular sex. Who knows?) That ability to change indicates a choice.
That's a different category, "How to lose money".
Somehow, a diet of tequila shooters supplemented with enough quality nutrition to meet the RDAs does not lift the balance out of the "bad food" category. The alcohol will damage your brain and liver, the lemon will eat away your teeth.
Wrong type of carbs. You should switch to carborundum.
That's not gneiss.
I knew a woman who complained to management when other people used code she wrote. She felt she was being denied credit for work she had done.