Name one thing you would be arrested for saying that a minority or woman wouldn't.
You would only be arrested for animal sacrifice if it was outside the scope of your religious practices. Such is banned secularly, but is not religiously. Join a Santeria sect and sacrifice animals if you wish without fear of arrest (I can provide citations if you wish), even if you're white as snow. Hell, you could start your own old school Christian sect and sacrifice bulls if you wished.
You don't have a right to engage in all discretionary behavior in an employment situation, and doing so will get you fired from just about any job. Your rights when acting in the employ of another are curtailed but for a very few, and so are everyone else's. You don't have a right as a teacher to do whatever you choose. School districts also do not have a right to do whatever they choose. And no, you would be no more able to take those kids to an Islamic event than you would a Christian event, or a Santeria event, or an FSM event. If you claim otherwise, provide evidence that is something more than speculation. You only have the right to take the children of consenting adults to a religious event as a private individual acting on your own, or in the employ of another if such is within the scope of your allowed duties while in that employ. I have always wondered at the mental gymnastics required to believe otherwise. It's no different, and no more a violation of your rights, than if you were fired for proselytizing (or writing a novel, or working on a legal defense) while on the clock at your job as a meat packer.
You actually would have been correct if you had mentioned affirmative action, which is one of the very few actual cases where some people have more protections than others.
Regarding the first paragraph, it most certainly does no such thing. Combining compulsory schooling with religious instruction will always amount to favoring the religion on which that instruction is based. The only way religion can be incorporated without violating the prohibition on sponsoring a religion is in something like a comparative religious studies class which approaches the topics in the same way a class on ancient mythology would.
Using tax dollars to fund religious trips is a sponsoring of religion, and as such is not a right. Ergo, not allowing such is not a violation of rights.
As for the second paragraph, I agree. I believe bringing children into this world is a partnership, but if one partner has the power to choose unilaterally the other should then be able to revoke any further duty in that partnership.
Yeah, in addition to other reasons to hate Comcast (depending on where you live), they have an arbitrary 11-character password limit. At least a couple years ago, anyway.
My city doesn't even have a property crimes division, let alone a financial crimes division. Unless it's a traffic infraction or a violent crime, they do not investigate anything.
Exactly. I live in Washington and have been aware of the Hanford leaks for many years. Nobody cares, and nobody will care until the spreading wastewater reaches the Columbia. By that point, it will not be possible to do anything about it.
Actually, the term does parallel "holocaust denier," because it refers to exactly the same behavior in both cases. Nothing short of "The Day After Tomorrow" actually happening (in terms of the former) and a jaunt in a time machine (for the latter) could possibly cause doubt.
The problem is when people use it not for the logical parallel between the terms, but instead intend to create an emotional parallel (Oh my god, you're a Nazi!) where one does not belong.
The problem is, the second a law is passed requiring private-party background checks with no recording requirements, the people whose goal it is to ban as many firearms as possible will start pushing for an amendment to start retaining the records. Now you have a registry with very little effort, because the entire system has been put into place.
Or, they get people elected or appointed into key positions who will look the other way when those records are retained even when they are not supposed to retain them.
This is the definition of classically conservative behavior. It's too bad neither of the major parties care for it in general, instead backing it up only when it supports the same things they already do.
Both the Republican and the Democratic parties are motivated by the fear of what they do not understand. The only difference is in the things they do not understand.
Sexual crimes are uniquely powerful in their ability to show how far a given individual is willing to short-circuit due process in order to support the conclusion they'd already reached.
The community would not exist without businesses dependent on it. Communities rely on such businesses for their very survival. A community with nothing but warehouses and datacenters is not a community, it's an industrial park.
There isn't an extraordinarily vocal and motivated minority attempting to ban the use of vehicles by hijacking vehicle safety legislation. If the sane majority didn't have to worry about those particular zealots, you'd see many more support lots of things they are leery of supporting currently.
I have many games lent. They're primarily what I play. I have bought a couple. Most of the games I have lent from friends I would not have ever bought. Some I would, due to replay value.
Without lending, I would not have a console, nor would I ever buy a game as a result. Companies would lose out on all first sales, and the value of new games decrease for many if there is not the expectation they can sell them later to recoup a percentage of the original price. The used market and lending are not "free games." They provide an essential part of how the market currently operates. This will change that, and quite possibly not to the benefit or liking of content producers.
I think this reply belongs further up the chain. I'm pretty sure the poster to whom you replied was asking a rhetorical question to which the answer is "no."
Slashdot Mirror
Name one thing you would be arrested for saying that a minority or woman wouldn't.
You would only be arrested for animal sacrifice if it was outside the scope of your religious practices. Such is banned secularly, but is not religiously. Join a Santeria sect and sacrifice animals if you wish without fear of arrest (I can provide citations if you wish), even if you're white as snow. Hell, you could start your own old school Christian sect and sacrifice bulls if you wished.
You don't have a right to engage in all discretionary behavior in an employment situation, and doing so will get you fired from just about any job. Your rights when acting in the employ of another are curtailed but for a very few, and so are everyone else's. You don't have a right as a teacher to do whatever you choose. School districts also do not have a right to do whatever they choose. And no, you would be no more able to take those kids to an Islamic event than you would a Christian event, or a Santeria event, or an FSM event. If you claim otherwise, provide evidence that is something more than speculation. You only have the right to take the children of consenting adults to a religious event as a private individual acting on your own, or in the employ of another if such is within the scope of your allowed duties while in that employ. I have always wondered at the mental gymnastics required to believe otherwise. It's no different, and no more a violation of your rights, than if you were fired for proselytizing (or writing a novel, or working on a legal defense) while on the clock at your job as a meat packer.
You actually would have been correct if you had mentioned affirmative action, which is one of the very few actual cases where some people have more protections than others.
Regarding the first paragraph, it most certainly does no such thing. Combining compulsory schooling with religious instruction will always amount to favoring the religion on which that instruction is based. The only way religion can be incorporated without violating the prohibition on sponsoring a religion is in something like a comparative religious studies class which approaches the topics in the same way a class on ancient mythology would.
Using tax dollars to fund religious trips is a sponsoring of religion, and as such is not a right. Ergo, not allowing such is not a violation of rights.
As for the second paragraph, I agree. I believe bringing children into this world is a partnership, but if one partner has the power to choose unilaterally the other should then be able to revoke any further duty in that partnership.
The proper way to tax it is by taxing ticket sales or the gross revenue of the sports organizations who use the stadium.
No. "Patriotic" now means "sitting down and shutting up, unless you're cheering the government."
The RIAA has nothing on the scum of ASCAP, though few even know what ASCAP is let alone how it works.
Zero in every State in which I've lived, time notwithstanding.
Seeing if anyone mentioned that little bit of stupidity is the only reason I bothered to open this "story."
Yeah, in addition to other reasons to hate Comcast (depending on where you live), they have an arbitrary 11-character password limit. At least a couple years ago, anyway.
My city doesn't even have a property crimes division, let alone a financial crimes division. Unless it's a traffic infraction or a violent crime, they do not investigate anything.
The branch library wasn't buying. A single state entity was spec'ing for everyone.
Exactly. I live in Washington and have been aware of the Hanford leaks for many years. Nobody cares, and nobody will care until the spreading wastewater reaches the Columbia. By that point, it will not be possible to do anything about it.
Actually, the term does parallel "holocaust denier," because it refers to exactly the same behavior in both cases. Nothing short of "The Day After Tomorrow" actually happening (in terms of the former) and a jaunt in a time machine (for the latter) could possibly cause doubt.
The problem is when people use it not for the logical parallel between the terms, but instead intend to create an emotional parallel (Oh my god, you're a Nazi!) where one does not belong.
Unless the deletion of the records is specifically addressed, such a law would allow the creation of a registry.
Government legislation is now default allow, not default deny as was originally intended.
The problem is, the second a law is passed requiring private-party background checks with no recording requirements, the people whose goal it is to ban as many firearms as possible will start pushing for an amendment to start retaining the records. Now you have a registry with very little effort, because the entire system has been put into place.
Or, they get people elected or appointed into key positions who will look the other way when those records are retained even when they are not supposed to retain them.
It's nearly impossible to miss with a load of buckshot at short range. The only way you miss is if you're using rifled slugs.
Firing a pistol is not equivalent to firing a shotgun, so the miss rate of pistols is meaningless to use as a comparative measure.
Of course they don't want censorship in principle. That would require having principles.
This is the definition of classically conservative behavior. It's too bad neither of the major parties care for it in general, instead backing it up only when it supports the same things they already do.
Both the Republican and the Democratic parties are motivated by the fear of what they do not understand. The only difference is in the things they do not understand.
Sexual crimes are uniquely powerful in their ability to show how far a given individual is willing to short-circuit due process in order to support the conclusion they'd already reached.
Only if you can first determine which twin is innocent. If they could do that, they wouldn't be in this predicament to begin with.
The community would not exist without businesses dependent on it. Communities rely on such businesses for their very survival. A community with nothing but warehouses and datacenters is not a community, it's an industrial park.
You miss the point entirely.
There isn't an extraordinarily vocal and motivated minority attempting to ban the use of vehicles by hijacking vehicle safety legislation. If the sane majority didn't have to worry about those particular zealots, you'd see many more support lots of things they are leery of supporting currently.
Bah. Lose out on all first sales from me.
I have many games lent. They're primarily what I play. I have bought a couple. Most of the games I have lent from friends I would not have ever bought. Some I would, due to replay value.
Without lending, I would not have a console, nor would I ever buy a game as a result. Companies would lose out on all first sales, and the value of new games decrease for many if there is not the expectation they can sell them later to recoup a percentage of the original price. The used market and lending are not "free games." They provide an essential part of how the market currently operates. This will change that, and quite possibly not to the benefit or liking of content producers.
It is, however, exactly like lending a book or movie.
I think this reply belongs further up the chain. I'm pretty sure the poster to whom you replied was asking a rhetorical question to which the answer is "no."