It's part of high school history..."What ended the great depression?" (in the US, for me) Some think FDR and his public works, some think industrial capacity increase for WWII, some think victory in WWII
Heading out to a tangent now but the cause is very unlikely to be victory of WWII as the economy was effectively restored to pre-GD times by the end of 1943. My personal opinion is it was a combination of the other two factors you mention; FDR's public works and WWII.
I don't think merely spending a money, even an epic amount of money, is itself going to unify what is a very divided nation.
I think you're right. Given recent accounts, the public seems to believe Obama can walk on water and gives orders directly to God, hope is already there. The next thing to do is to stimulate the economy (regardless if its truly creating jobs or not) by putting people back to work; and is some cases, back to work much sooner. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if it creates jobs or migrates jobs, the point is, it does so sooner such that cause and effect creates new jobs sooner by circulating money sooner through all levels of our economy. With the Great Black Hope, creating just that, the two may be a modern re-formalization of what ended the GD. And it doesn't hurt we *already* have *three* ongoing wars.
Needless to say, unless Obama completely screws up, assuming history can serve as a road map, it would be almost impossible for the economy not to recover.
The problem with government "creating" jobs this way (aside from the fact that it's misleading and a good way to get votes by promising an ignorant public jobs that will not actually be created, just moved from elsewhere) is that government does not risk with it's own money. If you take money out of private enterprise you can pretty much guarantee that the money will not be used efficiently. Thus more jobs get "created" by leaving matters up to the free market rather than redistributing it for the government's perceived benefits.
While I couldn't agree more with that statement, it fails to account for the human condition. Part of the problem that caused the Great Depression to become so great, was the human condition. The human condition caused the runs on banks, caused the call on stocks, and prevented money from circulating, creating vast quantities of money sitting idle. Even now we are constantly hearing the banks have screwed us because they are refusing to let the billions flow given to them to specifically let money flow. Already in our current economy, we have vast amounts sitting idle in addition to wealth simply disappearing.
So your theory only works in a perfect world without humans. So long as humans are part of the equation, the reality is a moving target, somewhere between theory and the Great Depression.
If you look at the many steps taken thus far, you'll quickly realize many of the actions taken were done so strictly to address the human condition.
Not always. In many cities, it is illegal to carry firearms into certain places by city ordinance even if you would otherwise be allowed to carry a concealed weapon.
City ordnances normally can not trump state law; depending on how the law is phrased. Furthermore, most of these signs are actually not legal, they serve only to assure the non-carrying public guns are not allowed despite the fact they are legally allowed. Where authoritative signs are legally binding, very specific signage is required. Signs which do not meet the legal requirements are not legally binding.
In many places, despite signs reassuring the public, carrying guns into airports is often legal, so long as you do not attempt to carry it into federally secured zones, whereby federal law trump state laws. This is why you often see additional signage indicating guns are not allowed inside the federally secured areas. Granted, I don't know I would be in a hurry to test this as I've read several accounts where police were confused about gun laws and owner's rights, and arrested (later released) gun owners for legally carrying.
When it comes to gun laws, Police seem to be on the cutting edge of ignorance of the laws in their own area. Don't confuse legality with police knowledge. Many gun owners have been surprised by the massive number of problems readily created by large numbers of ignorant police officers - even when laws, statues, and ordinances are readily available to address their ignorance.
Regardless of signage, you should help to encourage gun ownership and carrying as both open and concealed carry have pretty consistently shown to reduce violent crime in areas where carrying is legal. Inversely, some of the worst violent crimes are committed in gun-free zones. And statistically, violent crime has pretty consistently increased in areas where guns are banned. Regardless of your own gun desires, if safety is important to you, actively discourage gun-free zones as you are safer outside of them.
The G1's hardware supports multitouch. It is very likely the next OS update will enable multitouch. The G1's hardware is superior to the iPhone in every measure. iPhone's battery life is superior but that is likely to improve in the near future. Of course, the fact that Android applications can actually run in the background, which is impossible for 3rd party apps on the iPhone doesn't help battery life on Android either.
To summarize The pros and the cons of the platforms: iPhone Pros:
o Currently has superior battery life (1)
o At least two major generations of optimizations and improvements for the platform
o Interface is slightly smoother and more responsive (1)
o SDK supports C and Obj-C
o Low latency, native interface
iPhone Cons:
o No 3rd party apps can run in background (1). This greatly limits application capabilities but greatly enhances battery life.
o Apple has the final word on allowed applications.
o SDK is primarily in Obj-C
o Limited hardware scope and future
o Targeting new hardware architecture requires recompilation and shop does not have support - would be confusing to purchase
Android Pros:
o Can be developed on all major platforms (win/linux/osx)
o Google's Android platform developers are accessible and friendly.
o 3rd party applications can run in the background; continuously or periodically - Drastically enhancing application capabilities
o Native application development is not officially supported. C++ development is painful; using the provided compiler, exceptions and templates are not possible and static linking is required making for huge binaries and no reuse. Dynamic linking is possible with C.
o Google has some minor restrictions of types of allowed applications - which are actually carrier restrictions.
o Versatile application approach is architecturally independent because of reliance on DEX+VM
o GoogleMap support is built into platform - making many complex, location based applications easy to develop
o While not technically Android, currently the G1 has superior hardware capabilities including stereo bluetooth, 3-axis accelerometer (versus 2-axis), and a 3-d magnetic sensor.
Android Cons:
o Relatively high latency interface because of DEX-VM implementation. Optimizations coming.
o API is immature but stabilizing - some inconsistencies exist
o Platform is immature but stabilizing - Additional optimizations for both performance and battery life are coming
o The only officially support language is Java
o Officially, only Java -> DEX development is supported.
o DEX-VM has significant performance and memory implications. Optimizations coming.
o DEX-VM requires multi-language development (Java + C/C++; with C best fit) for performance critical code
o In some corner cases platform have odd notion of security requirements and associated limitations - which limits some corner case applications and/or application capability
(1) The lack of applications running in the background conserves battery but limits both functionality and scope of application capability.
Long story short, Android looks to have an excellent future in front of it. Each platform has its own advantages. Right now, Android is available on superior hardware platforms (G1 vs iPhone 3G); sadly, software limitations prevent leveraging its full capabilities.
I also forget to mention the G1 has 3-axis accelerometer and a 3-axis magnetic sensor. The iPhone only has a 2-axis accelerometer. AFAIK, the iPhone does not have a magnetic sensor; please correct me as needed. Likewise, the G1 has stereo bluetooth. It is softwares support which is lacking. In the near future, the G1 will have full software support for bluetooth as well as allow users to take full advantage of its stereo capabilities.
As of now, the G1 does have superior hardware compared to the iPhone and iPhone 3G. Unfortunately, everyone is simply waiting to take full advantage of it.
It's a catch-22. If they don't educate people on safety features it tends to hinder its acceptance. If people don't know why they are paying a premium, they likely won't pay it. Additionally, if features such as ABS are not properly taught to the buying public, they will continue to be used improperly.
It's a tough one. Teach people about their safety features and they learn to drive to minimize its benefits or don't teach them and they don't use the safety features properly. I'm actually not sure which scenario I prefer.
They banned ABS from F1, one can only assume that the teams found it beneficial.
Let's not forget to apply common sense here. The physics involved at 200+ MPH is drastically different compared to 40-80 MPH, especially once you include human factors. Not to mention, driving styles are drastically different between the two. Beneficial or not, it is very unlikely they are comparable in the least given the overwhelming number of differences between F1 and street driving.
I'm not sure where you're getting your facts. I've read several studies which clearly indicate some 10%-20% of the driving population, on average, have their stopping distances significantly increased because of ABS. Basic physics, as ABS is currently implemented, even supports this position. Likewise, I've read numerous car articles where such knowledge is a given. Based on my perspective, while I'm not surprised most people don't know this fact, I am surprised to see someone so strongly support a position contrary to the available body of knowledge.
If things have recently changed, I've very much like to read whatever references, if any, you have available.
I don't have a link to provide. There have been numerous studies performed at this point. I see someone has quoted results from at least one study below. That study's findings are actually far more generous than several others I've read over the last several years.
While the studies I'm eluding to are several years old, everything I've stated is well substantiated by multiple studies - though I stated it in a more provocative manner. Given the dry phraseology of studies, that's hardly surprising.
Lastly, please do not let me give you the impression ABS is a bad thing. Clearly they are helping to reduce accidents in many situations. On the other hand, they are also believed to contribute to many accidents, especially with larger vehicles (as in trucks and SUVs) by encouraging inferior drivers to further compromise safe driving distances.
It's important to remember, in *theory* ABS makes the majority of the driving public safer drivers. Which is to say, an average driver with average driving skill is now a superior driver with regard to stopping distance and ability (no skid, controlled turns).
For a small percent of the driving population, ABS actually makes you a less safe driver as ABS can not and does not stop a vehicle is a shorter distance than what a better than average driver can accomplish - on any road surface. This means for a small percentage of the driving population, ABS actually made you a less safe, more dangerous driver.
Of course, that all assumes the driver is actually using their ABS system properly; and this is where theory breaks down. Most ABS drivers still pump their brakes. For a large percentage of the driving population, ABS actually makes the roads more dangerous and countless studies show a large percent of average drivers who are aware they have ABS, now tailgate, brake later, and create more dangerous driving situations for those around them under the false pretence ABS can keep them from harm. In other words, a large percentage of the driving population actually believe they can drive more reckless, and do so on a regular basis, because they wrongly believe they are now safer drivers than they were without ABS - more than compensating for their new found dangerous driving habits.
The end result is, statistically on average, ABS has actually created more dangerous roads for the majority of the driving population.
On the other hand, a pilot on the tarmac doesn't have to expose himself to death or near-certain capture to be a very useful accomplice in a malicious act. Being able to move contraband freely from tarmac to terminal could be quite useful.
Then they need to do the same to air marshals and all TSA agents. Pilots are already investigated as well as federal air marshals. So if we take the next step in logic, federal air marshals are now likely accomplices to malicious acts. I can only assume you didn't realize the background checks pilots now go through. Of course, this means every TSA agent is a covert terrorists waiting to strike. This is just dumb.
TSA trumps pretty much everything else. The airlines were not informed of such *illegal* access to their aircraft. What the TSA agent did violated federal law and regulation.
Public nudity. Public nudity is illegal in most places. Given that everything else has already been explained in the original post, if you're still confused, that's you're problem. Go learn some law. Learn some common sense.
Like it or not, the law very clearly spells out what qualifies are illegal discrimination. You can legally discriminate. Period. It happens every day. Just the same, discrimination is not required at all in this case. So the rest of your racist ignorance and stupidity is ignored.
How fucked up are you that you believe
I believe it because of fact. Nudity has always been considered an issue of morality in the US. Period. Case closed.
Do you have anything else your ignorant about? Please bother to learn some law before you go on making posts were you come off as a complete racists, idiot, hick.
Yes, exactly. In most places, public breast feeding is not a legally protected right so refusing someone service for public nudity is legally protected.
The business is there to offer a service to the public.
And they all have the legal right to refuse service to ANYONE so long as it is not on the basis of established anti-discrimination laws. Given that there is no federal anti-nudity protection law, in all places, save only where state law provides some form of protection, it is perfectly legal to eject a patron under those conditions. Most states have no such protection.
And, the law has made it abundantly clear in almost all states, restaurants and especially taxicabs receive especially wide latitude to interpret their right to refuse service so long as it does not violate federal discrimination laws.
a) the house is full; b) the clients are in salubrity conditions that would disrupt the establishment;
And you would be wrong. Service can be denied for public disruption, violation of law, health code violations, etc. Considering public nudity is illegal in most places, unless that state specifically protects breast feeding, at that time, exactly as I originally said, they are legally protected in asking her to leave. Failure to leave means she can then be ticketed and/or arrested for violation and several laws, depending on her behaviour at that time.
Really?!?! Sick? Reread what I said. That statement makes you sound like a idiot. I even said it wouldn't bother me. Pointing out legal rights makes someone a "sick mother fucker"? Wow you really must be.
In most places, breast feeding in public is not protected by law. Many women's organizations are still fighting for such legally protected rights. Until then, they do not have legal protection and it is exactly as I stated, "forcing her morales on the public." Like it or not, forcing your nudity on the public IS a question of morality to the majority of the population.
Considering there is not law which prevents discrimination against breastfeeding, you are wrong. Asking someone to leave because of their race, religion, etc., of course would be illegal. The laws have been very clear that restaurants and taxicabs have especially wide latitude in applying this law.
I am amazed at how many people are completely out of touch with current laws and what they mean.
Did he donate the tax deductions he received too? Did he fail to claim them as charitable donations? I did not think so. If he was really the great guy you want to believe, we would have never known he made those donations. The guy has more money than God. Of course he needs huge tax breaks. And of course we all need to hear about it.
The thing is, it's legal to breastfeed anywhere that you're legally allowed to be while not breastfeeding,
Which completely ignores the fact in most states (all?!?), businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
She's forcing her morality on everyone there. It wouldn't bother me but it may greatly offend others. If she was asked to stop and refused, at that time they can ask her to leave. If she refuses, SHE is breaking the law - likely several laws.
If she does have a legal leg to stand on, and it doesn't sound likely, it sounds like several laws and rights are in direct conflict with each other.
Slashdot Mirror
He said, "I have my passwords in a file on a TrueCrypt volume."
His passwords are encrypted on disk.
It's part of high school history..."What ended the great depression?" (in the US, for me) Some think FDR and his public works, some think industrial capacity increase for WWII, some think victory in WWII
Heading out to a tangent now but the cause is very unlikely to be victory of WWII as the economy was effectively restored to pre-GD times by the end of 1943. My personal opinion is it was a combination of the other two factors you mention; FDR's public works and WWII.
I don't think merely spending a money, even an epic amount of money, is itself going to unify what is a very divided nation.
I think you're right. Given recent accounts, the public seems to believe Obama can walk on water and gives orders directly to God, hope is already there. The next thing to do is to stimulate the economy (regardless if its truly creating jobs or not) by putting people back to work; and is some cases, back to work much sooner. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if it creates jobs or migrates jobs, the point is, it does so sooner such that cause and effect creates new jobs sooner by circulating money sooner through all levels of our economy. With the Great Black Hope, creating just that, the two may be a modern re-formalization of what ended the GD. And it doesn't hurt we *already* have *three* ongoing wars.
Needless to say, unless Obama completely screws up, assuming history can serve as a road map, it would be almost impossible for the economy not to recover.
The trillions of dollars which are being offered represent money that the US government doesn't have.
Almost all money offered by the government represents dollars the government doesn't have. That's the basis of our entire economy.
The problem with government "creating" jobs this way (aside from the fact that it's misleading and a good way to get votes by promising an ignorant public jobs that will not actually be created, just moved from elsewhere) is that government does not risk with it's own money. If you take money out of private enterprise you can pretty much guarantee that the money will not be used efficiently. Thus more jobs get "created" by leaving matters up to the free market rather than redistributing it for the government's perceived benefits.
While I couldn't agree more with that statement, it fails to account for the human condition. Part of the problem that caused the Great Depression to become so great, was the human condition. The human condition caused the runs on banks, caused the call on stocks, and prevented money from circulating, creating vast quantities of money sitting idle. Even now we are constantly hearing the banks have screwed us because they are refusing to let the billions flow given to them to specifically let money flow. Already in our current economy, we have vast amounts sitting idle in addition to wealth simply disappearing.
So your theory only works in a perfect world without humans. So long as humans are part of the equation, the reality is a moving target, somewhere between theory and the Great Depression.
If you look at the many steps taken thus far, you'll quickly realize many of the actions taken were done so strictly to address the human condition.
Not always. In many cities, it is illegal to carry firearms into certain places by city ordinance even if you would otherwise be allowed to carry a concealed weapon.
City ordnances normally can not trump state law; depending on how the law is phrased. Furthermore, most of these signs are actually not legal, they serve only to assure the non-carrying public guns are not allowed despite the fact they are legally allowed. Where authoritative signs are legally binding, very specific signage is required. Signs which do not meet the legal requirements are not legally binding.
In many places, despite signs reassuring the public, carrying guns into airports is often legal, so long as you do not attempt to carry it into federally secured zones, whereby federal law trump state laws. This is why you often see additional signage indicating guns are not allowed inside the federally secured areas. Granted, I don't know I would be in a hurry to test this as I've read several accounts where police were confused about gun laws and owner's rights, and arrested (later released) gun owners for legally carrying.
When it comes to gun laws, Police seem to be on the cutting edge of ignorance of the laws in their own area. Don't confuse legality with police knowledge. Many gun owners have been surprised by the massive number of problems readily created by large numbers of ignorant police officers - even when laws, statues, and ordinances are readily available to address their ignorance.
Regardless of signage, you should help to encourage gun ownership and carrying as both open and concealed carry have pretty consistently shown to reduce violent crime in areas where carrying is legal. Inversely, some of the worst violent crimes are committed in gun-free zones. And statistically, violent crime has pretty consistently increased in areas where guns are banned. Regardless of your own gun desires, if safety is important to you, actively discourage gun-free zones as you are safer outside of them.
Except for a multitouch screen.
The G1's hardware supports multitouch. It is very likely the next OS update will enable multitouch. The G1's hardware is superior to the iPhone in every measure. iPhone's battery life is superior but that is likely to improve in the near future. Of course, the fact that Android applications can actually run in the background, which is impossible for 3rd party apps on the iPhone doesn't help battery life on Android either.
To summarize The pros and the cons of the platforms:
iPhone Pros:
o Currently has superior battery life (1)
o At least two major generations of optimizations and improvements for the platform
o Interface is slightly smoother and more responsive (1)
o SDK supports C and Obj-C
o Low latency, native interface
iPhone Cons:
o No 3rd party apps can run in background (1). This greatly limits application capabilities but greatly enhances battery life.
o Apple has the final word on allowed applications.
o SDK is primarily in Obj-C
o Limited hardware scope and future
o Targeting new hardware architecture requires recompilation and shop does not have support - would be confusing to purchase
Android Pros:
o Can be developed on all major platforms (win/linux/osx)
o Google's Android platform developers are accessible and friendly.
o 3rd party applications can run in the background; continuously or periodically - Drastically enhancing application capabilities
o Native application development is not officially supported. C++ development is painful; using the provided compiler, exceptions and templates are not possible and static linking is required making for huge binaries and no reuse. Dynamic linking is possible with C.
o Google has some minor restrictions of types of allowed applications - which are actually carrier restrictions.
o Versatile application approach is architecturally independent because of reliance on DEX+VM
o GoogleMap support is built into platform - making many complex, location based applications easy to develop
o While not technically Android, currently the G1 has superior hardware capabilities including stereo bluetooth, 3-axis accelerometer (versus 2-axis), and a 3-d magnetic sensor.
Android Cons:
o Relatively high latency interface because of DEX-VM implementation. Optimizations coming.
o API is immature but stabilizing - some inconsistencies exist
o Platform is immature but stabilizing - Additional optimizations for both performance and battery life are coming
o The only officially support language is Java
o Officially, only Java -> DEX development is supported.
o DEX-VM has significant performance and memory implications. Optimizations coming.
o DEX-VM requires multi-language development (Java + C/C++; with C best fit) for performance critical code
o In some corner cases platform have odd notion of security requirements and associated limitations - which limits some corner case applications and/or application capability
(1) The lack of applications running in the background conserves battery but limits both functionality and scope of application capability.
Long story short, Android looks to have an excellent future in front of it. Each platform has its own advantages. Right now, Android is available on superior hardware platforms (G1 vs iPhone 3G); sadly, software limitations prevent leveraging its full capabilities.
I also forget to mention the G1 has 3-axis accelerometer and a 3-axis magnetic sensor. The iPhone only has a 2-axis accelerometer. AFAIK, the iPhone does not have a magnetic sensor; please correct me as needed. Likewise, the G1 has stereo bluetooth. It is softwares support which is lacking. In the near future, the G1 will have full software support for bluetooth as well as allow users to take full advantage of its stereo capabilities.
As of now, the G1 does have superior hardware compared to the iPhone and iPhone 3G. Unfortunately, everyone is simply waiting to take full advantage of it.
*I* think companies shouldn't advertise safety features.
It's a catch-22. If they don't educate people on safety features it tends to hinder its acceptance. If people don't know why they are paying a premium, they likely won't pay it. Additionally, if features such as ABS are not properly taught to the buying public, they will continue to be used improperly.
It's a tough one. Teach people about their safety features and they learn to drive to minimize its benefits or don't teach them and they don't use the safety features properly. I'm actually not sure which scenario I prefer.
They banned ABS from F1, one can only assume that the teams found it beneficial.
Let's not forget to apply common sense here. The physics involved at 200+ MPH is drastically different compared to 40-80 MPH, especially once you include human factors. Not to mention, driving styles are drastically different between the two. Beneficial or not, it is very unlikely they are comparable in the least given the overwhelming number of differences between F1 and street driving.
I believe you are absolutely wrong.
I'm not sure where you're getting your facts. I've read several studies which clearly indicate some 10%-20% of the driving population, on average, have their stopping distances significantly increased because of ABS. Basic physics, as ABS is currently implemented, even supports this position. Likewise, I've read numerous car articles where such knowledge is a given. Based on my perspective, while I'm not surprised most people don't know this fact, I am surprised to see someone so strongly support a position contrary to the available body of knowledge.
If things have recently changed, I've very much like to read whatever references, if any, you have available.
with ABS actually releases the brakes in surprise because of the vibration.
Multiple studies have show this is in fact a documented issue.
I don't have a link to provide. There have been numerous studies performed at this point. I see someone has quoted results from at least one study below. That study's findings are actually far more generous than several others I've read over the last several years.
While the studies I'm eluding to are several years old, everything I've stated is well substantiated by multiple studies - though I stated it in a more provocative manner. Given the dry phraseology of studies, that's hardly surprising.
Lastly, please do not let me give you the impression ABS is a bad thing. Clearly they are helping to reduce accidents in many situations. On the other hand, they are also believed to contribute to many accidents, especially with larger vehicles (as in trucks and SUVs) by encouraging inferior drivers to further compromise safe driving distances.
It's important to remember, in *theory* ABS makes the majority of the driving public safer drivers. Which is to say, an average driver with average driving skill is now a superior driver with regard to stopping distance and ability (no skid, controlled turns).
For a small percent of the driving population, ABS actually makes you a less safe driver as ABS can not and does not stop a vehicle is a shorter distance than what a better than average driver can accomplish - on any road surface. This means for a small percentage of the driving population, ABS actually made you a less safe, more dangerous driver.
Of course, that all assumes the driver is actually using their ABS system properly; and this is where theory breaks down. Most ABS drivers still pump their brakes. For a large percentage of the driving population, ABS actually makes the roads more dangerous and countless studies show a large percent of average drivers who are aware they have ABS, now tailgate, brake later, and create more dangerous driving situations for those around them under the false pretence ABS can keep them from harm. In other words, a large percentage of the driving population actually believe they can drive more reckless, and do so on a regular basis, because they wrongly believe they are now safer drivers than they were without ABS - more than compensating for their new found dangerous driving habits.
The end result is, statistically on average, ABS has actually created more dangerous roads for the majority of the driving population.
No, that's not what I mean. I mean exactly what I said.
On the other hand, a pilot on the tarmac doesn't have to expose himself to death or near-certain capture to be a very useful accomplice in a malicious act. Being able to move contraband freely from tarmac to terminal could be quite useful.
Then they need to do the same to air marshals and all TSA agents. Pilots are already investigated as well as federal air marshals. So if we take the next step in logic, federal air marshals are now likely accomplices to malicious acts. I can only assume you didn't realize the background checks pilots now go through. Of course, this means every TSA agent is a covert terrorists waiting to strike. This is just dumb.
Wrong.
TSA trumps pretty much everything else. The airlines were not informed of such *illegal* access to their aircraft. What the TSA agent did violated federal law and regulation.
How is she forcing her morality on anyone?
Public nudity. Public nudity is illegal in most places. Given that everything else has already been explained in the original post, if you're still confused, that's you're problem. Go learn some law. Learn some common sense.
Most states to do protect public breast feeding. As such, what she did constitutes public nudity.
There are laws specifically protecting breastfeeding,
No such federal law exists. Most states do not provide any such protection.
Including blacks and hispanics?
You really are uneducated.
Like it or not, the law very clearly spells out what qualifies are illegal discrimination. You can legally discriminate. Period. It happens every day. Just the same, discrimination is not required at all in this case. So the rest of your racist ignorance and stupidity is ignored.
How fucked up are you that you believe
I believe it because of fact. Nudity has always been considered an issue of morality in the US. Period. Case closed.
Do you have anything else your ignorant about? Please bother to learn some law before you go on making posts were you come off as a complete racists, idiot, hick.
Not exactly.
Yes, exactly. In most places, public breast feeding is not a legally protected right so refusing someone service for public nudity is legally protected.
The business is there to offer a service to the public.
And they all have the legal right to refuse service to ANYONE so long as it is not on the basis of established anti-discrimination laws. Given that there is no federal anti-nudity protection law, in all places, save only where state law provides some form of protection, it is perfectly legal to eject a patron under those conditions. Most states have no such protection.
And, the law has made it abundantly clear in almost all states, restaurants and especially taxicabs receive especially wide latitude to interpret their right to refuse service so long as it does not violate federal discrimination laws.
a) the house is full;
b) the clients are in salubrity conditions that would disrupt the establishment;
And you would be wrong. Service can be denied for public disruption, violation of law, health code violations, etc. Considering public nudity is illegal in most places, unless that state specifically protects breast feeding, at that time, exactly as I originally said, they are legally protected in asking her to leave. Failure to leave means she can then be ticketed and/or arrested for violation and several laws, depending on her behaviour at that time.
1Go ahead, try it. You sick mother fucker.
Really?!?! Sick? Reread what I said. That statement makes you sound like a idiot. I even said it wouldn't bother me. Pointing out legal rights makes someone a "sick mother fucker"? Wow you really must be.
In most places, breast feeding in public is not protected by law. Many women's organizations are still fighting for such legally protected rights. Until then, they do not have legal protection and it is exactly as I stated, "forcing her morales on the public." Like it or not, forcing your nudity on the public IS a question of morality to the majority of the population.
Learn the law and stop trolling.
Considering there is not law which prevents discrimination against breastfeeding, you are wrong. Asking someone to leave because of their race, religion, etc., of course would be illegal. The laws have been very clear that restaurants and taxicabs have especially wide latitude in applying this law.
I am amazed at how many people are completely out of touch with current laws and what they mean.
Did he donate the tax deductions he received too? Did he fail to claim them as charitable donations? I did not think so. If he was really the great guy you want to believe, we would have never known he made those donations. The guy has more money than God. Of course he needs huge tax breaks. And of course we all need to hear about it.
The thing is, it's legal to breastfeed anywhere that you're legally allowed to be while not breastfeeding,
Which completely ignores the fact in most states (all?!?), businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
She's forcing her morality on everyone there. It wouldn't bother me but it may greatly offend others. If she was asked to stop and refused, at that time they can ask her to leave. If she refuses, SHE is breaking the law - likely several laws.
If she does have a legal leg to stand on, and it doesn't sound likely, it sounds like several laws and rights are in direct conflict with each other.