I was under the impression that my private business with my cellular phone provider was just that, private, and without a warrant this information in the form of 'papers and effects' was supposed to be subject to 4th Amendment protections unless sought via warrant process...
Let's see, how does that go? Soap, Ballot, Jury, and Ammo?
We seem to be at Jury...and it's not going well.
What's that other one? "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
I have to waste some mod points to give the reasons. The legislation bans consideration of research where all data is not publicly available without regard for which data is available - like public health studies with anonymized data [ucsusa.org].
This bill would make it impossible for the EPA to use many health studies, since they often contain private patient information that canâ(TM)t and shouldnâ(TM)t be revealed. Studies based on confidential business information would also be off-limits. Studies of human exposures to toxics over time and from a variety of locations likely cannot be reproduced. Neither can meta-analyses, looking at the results of hundreds of scientific studies to assess their conclusions. Such studies provide critical scientific evidence in many fields of research. This legislation wasnâ(TM)t designed to promote good scienceâ"it was crafted to prevent public health and environmental laws from being enforced.
So, you've got one guy on a political-agenda-driven website, who is not a lawyer, who says *in his opinion*, that's what the bill would do.
What specific parts/language of/in the bill forbids anonymized personal, individual data to be used in otherwise open and reproducible studies?
If the bill does contain such wording.language, if it were altered so that such pragmatic and practical concerns are handled, would you then support it?
Or is this just a vector of attack on a bill which you do not support the main intent (eliminating regulation-creation within Federal agencies/Depts with force of law based on secret studies/data) of?
I think the place they will dominate first (and next, I guess) is motorcycles. The only thing missing from most current electric motorcycles is top speed.
Prepare for major E-cycle-gasm. 140 miles per charge highway, 230 city. Full charge time 1 hour. Insanely fast.
Even this one is reportedly quite fast, and being a replica of a "light cycle" from the movie "Tron", it *should* come with a gold-plated Nerd Card included.
Don't worry, the next round of Republican voting will ensure he's replaced by a guy that uses a drawl, could beat up the other candidate physically, and asks God for guidance on good encryption policy.
But...but..
Robert Byrd is dead and was a Democrat, besides he didn't look all that tough! Maybe he was a bit more spry back in his younger days when he was burning crosses on 'uppity' black family's front lawns with Al Gore Sr.
There's a difference between invasive and non-invasive probes. Finding molecules outside your car is non-invasive. Projecting an EMF beam into it is.
This is why I included infrared in my sample of possible devices/methods. An infrared camera type device simply detects the radiation leaving your personal/private property/vehicle/home that a human cannot see with their eyes, the same way a biological sensor called a dog detects scent molecules outside your personal/private property/vehicle/home that a human cannot detect with their sense of smell.
The dog sniffing around your car is not considered a search of the car (because it's searching the area around the car that is not part of your personal property.
How is that any different than an X-ray/millimeter-wave/infrared device being used to determine the contents of the vehicles?
In both cases (sniffing-dog and machine) a tool outside of the officer's five senses is being used.
Does having fur make using a dog permissible legally while a scanning device is not permissible short of some sort of probable cause?
If someone is stopped by an officer with a dog, the dog is legally allowed to sniff around the vehicle, but even if the officer has a scanning device with him he's not allowed to use it short of a probable cause existing.
A search is a search, regardless of whether it uses scent molecules or infrared/millimeter-wave/x-ray/ultrasonic energy, and it's also a search regardless of whether or not the "detector" has fur and a collar.
Classic court allowed telco support would be for one cell number, account or person. The cellular phone surveillance device becomes a cell tower like device in a community and collects all calls in that area. The cell site simulator has total access as it forces all mobile phones in the area to connect to it. Collect it all is how a cell site simulator works for cellular phone surveillance. A change to bulk collection.
Are these devices attended by actual humans, or, as is likely, it's set up and left recording in some nearby convenient location like the back of a parked van, motel room, or abandoned building, etc?
If so, they should be easy to radio-locate, like the old CB radio 'rabbit hunts'. How upset would they be to find their expensive toy missing when they returned?
If it *is* attended, surround the location and start protesting and out them. Don't forget to video record.
If police don't need a warrant, then does that mean that anyone can run a Stingray? It's not that hard. A little sauce for the gander.
You can even pick up the essentials to "roll your own" "Stingray" type device at a bargain, used/refurbished.
If so it might well completely collapse the economy.
You say that as if some in power don't see that ideologically as a feature, rather than a bug. Many in positions of power/wealth have set themselves up so that they would benefit hugely in various ways such as politically/ideologically and financially from such a disaster, and in fact use it as a catapult into total authoritarian takeover.
George Soros, as one example, has made a pastime of profiting, and many say working to cause, national currencies and economies to collapse. There are many others who would stand to benefit enormously in various ways both inside and outside the US from it's economic/political collapse.
Think about your circuits class. 1)You have a battery and some lights. Then someone else starts attaching more power to your system. Your bulbs start popping because you can't stop them from attaching more power than your grid can hold. 2) You are now a lineman. Go to replace a light on your circuit board. You turn off the power and grab the bulb, BUT someone has hooked up another power to your board without you knowing. ZAP!. This is a safety issue for the linemen as well.
How dare you bring logic and facts into this political/ideological low-info Donnybrook!
An unexpected and unwanted text message from a wireless company prematurely exploded a would-be suicide bomberâ(TM)s vest bomb in Russia New Yearâ(TM)s Eve, inadvertently thwarting a planned attack on revelers in Moscow, according to The Daily Telegraph.
Explains why more terrorists don't use Verizon.
Achmed the Dead Terrorist agrees! (But at least he took that Verizon bastard with him!)
Just create two other "car companies" that sell re-branded Tesla cars and have the three of them open up a permanent auto trade show in which they would be allowed to sell directly.
Why bother creating other companies? Just create a trade show for electric-only cars. If Nissan and Fiat (is there anyone else selling 100% electric cars?) don't show up, it's still a trade show. Tesla doesn't compete with the Nissan or Fiat electric cars, yet.
Think outside the box!
Why not use the IRFA that's been so much in the news lately?
Being able to legally purchase any product directly from the maker if said maker is willing and offers to sell is part of your religious beliefs and practices as a member of the Teslaticular Church of Gedouddamahface.
For this to be true, there must be some law passed by Congress making the donation illegal, presumably when the recipient is a member of some group as determined by the executive branch.
How 1980's!
There is only one branch of government, the Executive, then there are the minor agencies and departments like the Congressional Dept. and Legislative agency, all closely overseen by the Executive branches' all-seeing intelligence and monitoring apparatus.
Any who buck the status quo are destroyed.
But hey, there's rumored to be a new Marvel Comic-based movie in the works!
If I were Tesla Motors (owned it, whatever) I'd park a new Tesla across the street from every new car dealership with large signs saying things like "This Is The Car $DEALERBRAND Doesn't Want You To See Or Drive!".
I'd take a page out of the Saul Alinsky playbook and bus-in protesters to march in front of every dealership every day, plus full-page ads in every paper..
Use a buggy-whip as a symbol for the car makers/dealers to frame them as outmoded and obsolete in the public's eye.
How is that compatible with the construct of a free and open society based on the rule of law, which has allowances for "search" of a person's private effects?
Short of a Judge's orders in a particular ongoing investigation and/or court case, there is no obligation on the part of citizens to create/store/retrieve their papers/data and effects so as to make a search easier. Or even possible.
If I and someone else creates a language only we understand and converse over the telephone, we are not obligated to teach any TLAs/LEAs that are recording/monitoring how to understand our new language.
Any such requirement would likely fail court challenges due to it's prior-restraint nature.
You'll also find that there are many tasks which are far more difficult to accomplish without one.
Such as? This is a serious question. I'm trying to think of anything that is more difficult to accomplish without social media, and I'm coming up blank.
Although results are admittedly mixed and vary widely depending on the ability/savvy of those running/maintaining it, having a performing/touring/recording band FB page....or not...can make a difference these days.
The only hate in this discussion is held by people who don't want to treat others as normal human beings because their religion teaches them to despise others for being who they were born.
But you can twist it in to some sort of attack on "the right" if you wish - it only serves to make you look rather foolish and encouraging the very hate you pretend to not like.
So then you're in favor of skinheads and Westboro Baptist-style nutjobs forcing LGBT and ethnic owned bakeries to provide cakes with Nazi/KKK/skinhead themed cakes.
Be very careful what you wish for. A law forcing people to participate in, enable, and/or advocate for things they are fundamentally opposed to have historically demonstrated a nasty habit of being turned around and used against the very people who thought they were a great idea.
You're a special kind of stupid. The kind that enables tyranny.
Your examples need to be equivalent and the same thing: hate speech is not protected speech last time I checked.
"Hate speech" is a completely arbitrary, subjective, politically-driven, and constantly-changing standard, meaning it is no standard at all.
As I said above, bake them a cake, sure. But, to *force* a person under threat of deadly force to include symbols/symbolism, slogans, etc which convey support for or against any religious, ideological, political, or ethical subject/topic/party/etc to which they are fundamentally opposed is WRONG.
No matter the motive, it is wrong.
The next time there's some Bill or Proposition seeking to restrict rights of a protected class like LGBTs before a legislative body over which there is much contention, would it be OK for some anti-LGBT group to force an LGBT baker to provide them a cake with the graphic symbol being used to self-identify by that group? Like a swastika, maybe?
Sorry, you cannot force free people to participate in and/or advocate for things they fundamentally oppose. That's one of the reasons people came to colonize America, to escape exactly such tyranny by the churches and the monarchies of the Old World.
Only an ideological Luddite would want to turn history back and destroy basic pillars of individual liberty and freedom that so many have died for.
Being a hate-filled Christian is a choice, being gay isn't. What's so difficult to understand about that?
So, you're in favor of the Westboro Baptists forcing LGBT-owned bakeries to bake cakes with "God Hates Gays" and other equally disgusting slogans? You'd like to see black-owned bakeries forced to bake cakes with "Niggers Are Monkeys" for the KKK?
That is what you're advocating for.
Of course to realize this you would have to have spent some time actually "thinking" about the subject rather than simply "emote" your way through logical problems.
This is another power grab by the religious right. It is connected to their efforts to restrict sex (through access to contraception, sex education, abortion, etc) and control the lives of Americans in the bedroom. But you know what? Every article, every boycott and every protest is pushing them back. Similar bills are stalling or failing. The outrage at actions like these are causing more and more Americans to leave their religion in disgust. The more we drag this bullshit into the light, the more the theocrats feel the heat.
Just, wow. This is not about some vast right-wing religious conspiracy or hatred for some group or groups.
This is about not being forced to advocate for a religious/ideological/political belief/position to which one is fundamentally opposed.
Sell somebody a cake regardless of race/religion/sex or sexual orientation/etc/etc fine. No problem.
Being forced to *participate in and/or advocate* for or against a religious principle or political/ideological position, *there* is where the problem lies.
For example, an LGBT-owned bakery should not be forced to provide a cake with "God Hates Fags" on it for the Westboro Baptist nutjobs. Provide a generic cake? Yes. Provide the message? No.
Same thing here. Provide a cake, yes. Participate in advocating LGBT practices, no.
Why is this so difficult a concept to understand? What gives anyone the right to force someone else to participate in and/or advocate for something they are fundamentally opposed to?
Sell somebody a cake regardless of race/religion/sex or sexual orientation/etc/etc fine. No problem.
Being forced to *participate in and/or advocate* for or against a religious principle or political/ideological position, *there* is where the problem lies.
For example, an LGBT-owned bakery should not be forced to provide a cake with "God Hates Fags" on it for the Westboro Baptist nutjobs. Provide a generic cake? Yes. Provide the message? No.
Same thing here. Provide a cake, yes. Participate in advocating LGBT practices, no.
Why is this so difficult a concept to understand? What gives anyone the right to force someone else to participate in and/or advocate for something they are fundamentally opposed to?
"This isn't right. You only raised medical insurance premiums by $X-thousands for a year of lower quality medical insurance? Bros, do you even Obamacare? Here, lemme show you..."
Wow, that works for pretty much anything US Federal Government-controlled/regulated.
It doesn't matter how the fuck the government wants to tax individuals vs. businesses. You can comply with the law or suffer the consequences of not doing so.
So you would punish a gay owned & operated photography-for-hire that refused to take on a job photographing the next Westboro Baptist Church anti-gay protest? You would punish that business if it were owned by Muslims and refused to photograph a gay or Jewish wedding?
Being a law does not make something right. It was the law that blacks sat at the back of the bus. So by your reasoning Rosa Parks should have 'suffered the consequences'?
You really should try thinking farther than your knees can jerk.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" checkbox.
Why would I do that?
I am not afraid to say what I think.
They can only hurt one of me.
Strat
I was under the impression that my private business with my cellular phone provider was just that, private, and without a warrant this information in the form of 'papers and effects' was supposed to be subject to 4th Amendment protections unless sought via warrant process...
Let's see, how does that go? Soap, Ballot, Jury, and Ammo?
We seem to be at Jury...and it's not going well.
What's that other one? "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Hmm, what to do, what to do...?
Strat
So, you've got one guy on a political-agenda-driven website, who is not a lawyer, who says *in his opinion*, that's what the bill would do.
What specific parts/language of/in the bill forbids anonymized personal, individual data to be used in otherwise open and reproducible studies?
If the bill does contain such wording.language, if it were altered so that such pragmatic and practical concerns are handled, would you then support it?
Or is this just a vector of attack on a bill which you do not support the main intent (eliminating regulation-creation within Federal agencies/Depts with force of law based on secret studies/data) of?
Strat
I think the place they will dominate first (and next, I guess) is motorcycles. The only thing missing from most current electric motorcycles is top speed.
Prepare for major E-cycle-gasm. 140 miles per charge highway, 230 city. Full charge time 1 hour. Insanely fast.
https://youtu.be/W1CSdYsJIWQ
Even this one is reportedly quite fast, and being a replica of a "light cycle" from the movie "Tron", it *should* come with a gold-plated Nerd Card included.
https://youtu.be/6aC57JeJt44
They also makes more cosmetically-conventional (and affordable/practical) models as well.
Strat
Don't worry, the next round of Republican voting will ensure he's replaced by a guy that uses a drawl, could beat up the other candidate physically, and asks God for guidance on good encryption policy.
But...but..
Robert Byrd is dead and was a Democrat, besides he didn't look all that tough! Maybe he was a bit more spry back in his younger days when he was burning crosses on 'uppity' black family's front lawns with Al Gore Sr.
Strat
There's a difference between invasive and non-invasive probes. Finding molecules outside your car is non-invasive. Projecting an EMF beam into it is.
This is why I included infrared in my sample of possible devices/methods. An infrared camera type device simply detects the radiation leaving your personal/private property/vehicle/home that a human cannot see with their eyes, the same way a biological sensor called a dog detects scent molecules outside your personal/private property/vehicle/home that a human cannot detect with their sense of smell.
Strat
The dog sniffing around your car is not considered a search of the car (because it's searching the area around the car that is not part of your personal property.
How is that any different than an X-ray/millimeter-wave/infrared device being used to determine the contents of the vehicles?
In both cases (sniffing-dog and machine) a tool outside of the officer's five senses is being used.
Does having fur make using a dog permissible legally while a scanning device is not permissible short of some sort of probable cause?
If someone is stopped by an officer with a dog, the dog is legally allowed to sniff around the vehicle, but even if the officer has a scanning device with him he's not allowed to use it short of a probable cause existing.
A search is a search, regardless of whether it uses scent molecules or infrared/millimeter-wave/x-ray/ultrasonic energy, and it's also a search regardless of whether or not the "detector" has fur and a collar.
Strat
Classic court allowed telco support would be for one cell number, account or person.
The cellular phone surveillance device becomes a cell tower like device in a community and collects all calls in that area.
The cell site simulator has total access as it forces all mobile phones in the area to connect to it.
Collect it all is how a cell site simulator works for cellular phone surveillance.
A change to bulk collection.
Are these devices attended by actual humans, or, as is likely, it's set up and left recording in some nearby convenient location like the back of a parked van, motel room, or abandoned building, etc?
If so, they should be easy to radio-locate, like the old CB radio 'rabbit hunts'. How upset would they be to find their expensive toy missing when they returned?
If it *is* attended, surround the location and start protesting and out them. Don't forget to video record.
If police don't need a warrant, then does that mean that anyone can run a Stingray? It's not that hard. A little sauce for the gander.
You can even pick up the essentials to "roll your own" "Stingray" type device at a bargain, used/refurbished.
http://www.testequipmentdepot....
Park one in a van in Washington D.C. on K St. or near the WH, and/or certain parts of Alexandria VA for extra lulz.
Strat
If so it might well completely collapse the economy.
You say that as if some in power don't see that ideologically as a feature, rather than a bug. Many in positions of power/wealth have set themselves up so that they would benefit hugely in various ways such as politically/ideologically and financially from such a disaster, and in fact use it as a catapult into total authoritarian takeover.
George Soros, as one example, has made a pastime of profiting, and many say working to cause, national currencies and economies to collapse. There are many others who would stand to benefit enormously in various ways both inside and outside the US from it's economic/political collapse.
Bottom up, top down, inside-out.
Strat
Think about your circuits class.
1)You have a battery and some lights. Then someone else starts attaching more power to your system. Your bulbs start popping because you can't stop them from attaching more power than your grid can hold.
2) You are now a lineman. Go to replace a light on your circuit board. You turn off the power and grab the bulb, BUT someone has hooked up another power to your board without you knowing. ZAP!.
This is a safety issue for the linemen as well.
How dare you bring logic and facts into this political/ideological low-info Donnybrook!
Strat
Achmed the Dead Terrorist agrees! (But at least he took that Verizon bastard with him!)
(At 8:08) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Strat
Think outside the box!
Why not use the IRFA that's been so much in the news lately?
Being able to legally purchase any product directly from the maker if said maker is willing and offers to sell is part of your religious beliefs and practices as a member of the Teslaticular Church of Gedouddamahface.
Strat
...Congressional Dept. and Judicial agency...
Gah! o.0
For this to be true, there must be some law passed by Congress making the donation illegal, presumably when the recipient is a member of some group as determined by the executive branch.
How 1980's!
There is only one branch of government, the Executive, then there are the minor agencies and departments like the Congressional Dept. and Legislative agency, all closely overseen by the Executive branches' all-seeing intelligence and monitoring apparatus.
Any who buck the status quo are destroyed.
But hey, there's rumored to be a new Marvel Comic-based movie in the works!
Strat
If I were Tesla Motors (owned it, whatever) I'd park a new Tesla across the street from every new car dealership with large signs saying things like "This Is The Car $DEALERBRAND Doesn't Want You To See Or Drive!".
I'd take a page out of the Saul Alinsky playbook and bus-in protesters to march in front of every dealership every day, plus full-page ads in every paper..
Use a buggy-whip as a symbol for the car makers/dealers to frame them as outmoded and obsolete in the public's eye.
Strat
How is that compatible with the construct of a free and open society based on the rule of law, which has allowances for "search" of a person's private effects?
Short of a Judge's orders in a particular ongoing investigation and/or court case, there is no obligation on the part of citizens to create/store/retrieve their papers/data and effects so as to make a search easier. Or even possible.
If I and someone else creates a language only we understand and converse over the telephone, we are not obligated to teach any TLAs/LEAs that are recording/monitoring how to understand our new language.
Any such requirement would likely fail court challenges due to it's prior-restraint nature.
Strat
The license plate is registered to you, right?
Mount the plate with quick-release bolts. When you park somewhere take it with you, or store it inside the vehicle.
Or, you could find the motor pool where they park the plate-reader parking enforcement vehicles and set them all on fire.
Or, you could find the politicians/bureaucrats responsible and set them on fire.
Depends on your style, I suppose.
Strat
Although results are admittedly mixed and vary widely depending on the ability/savvy of those running/maintaining it, having a performing/touring/recording band FB page....or not...can make a difference these days.
Strat
The only hate in this discussion is held by people who don't want to treat others as normal human beings because their religion teaches them to despise others for being who they were born.
But you can twist it in to some sort of attack on "the right" if you wish - it only serves to make you look rather foolish and encouraging the very hate you pretend to not like.
So then you're in favor of skinheads and Westboro Baptist-style nutjobs forcing LGBT and ethnic owned bakeries to provide cakes with Nazi/KKK/skinhead themed cakes.
Be very careful what you wish for. A law forcing people to participate in, enable, and/or advocate for things they are fundamentally opposed to have historically demonstrated a nasty habit of being turned around and used against the very people who thought they were a great idea.
You're a special kind of stupid. The kind that enables tyranny.
Strat
Your examples need to be equivalent and the same thing: hate speech is not protected speech last time I checked.
"Hate speech" is a completely arbitrary, subjective, politically-driven, and constantly-changing standard, meaning it is no standard at all.
As I said above, bake them a cake, sure. But, to *force* a person under threat of deadly force to include symbols/symbolism, slogans, etc which convey support for or against any religious, ideological, political, or ethical subject/topic/party/etc to which they are fundamentally opposed is WRONG.
No matter the motive, it is wrong.
The next time there's some Bill or Proposition seeking to restrict rights of a protected class like LGBTs before a legislative body over which there is much contention, would it be OK for some anti-LGBT group to force an LGBT baker to provide them a cake with the graphic symbol being used to self-identify by that group? Like a swastika, maybe?
Sorry, you cannot force free people to participate in and/or advocate for things they fundamentally oppose. That's one of the reasons people came to colonize America, to escape exactly such tyranny by the churches and the monarchies of the Old World.
Only an ideological Luddite would want to turn history back and destroy basic pillars of individual liberty and freedom that so many have died for.
Strat
Being a hate-filled Christian is a choice, being gay isn't. What's so difficult to understand about that?
So, you're in favor of the Westboro Baptists forcing LGBT-owned bakeries to bake cakes with "God Hates Gays" and other equally disgusting slogans? You'd like to see black-owned bakeries forced to bake cakes with "Niggers Are Monkeys" for the KKK?
That is what you're advocating for.
Of course to realize this you would have to have spent some time actually "thinking" about the subject rather than simply "emote" your way through logical problems.
Strat
This is another power grab by the religious right. It is connected to their efforts to restrict sex (through access to contraception, sex education, abortion, etc) and control the lives of Americans in the bedroom. But you know what? Every article, every boycott and every protest is pushing them back. Similar bills are stalling or failing. The outrage at actions like these are causing more and more Americans to leave their religion in disgust. The more we drag this bullshit into the light, the more the theocrats feel the heat.
Just, wow. This is not about some vast right-wing religious conspiracy or hatred for some group or groups.
This is about not being forced to advocate for a religious/ideological/political belief/position to which one is fundamentally opposed.
From my post here: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Sell somebody a cake regardless of race/religion/sex or sexual orientation/etc/etc fine. No problem.
Being forced to *participate in and/or advocate* for or against a religious principle or political/ideological position, *there* is where the problem lies.
For example, an LGBT-owned bakery should not be forced to provide a cake with "God Hates Fags" on it for the Westboro Baptist nutjobs. Provide a generic cake? Yes. Provide the message? No.
Same thing here. Provide a cake, yes. Participate in advocating LGBT practices, no.
Why is this so difficult a concept to understand? What gives anyone the right to force someone else to participate in and/or advocate for something they are fundamentally opposed to?
Strat
Sell somebody a cake regardless of race/religion/sex or sexual orientation/etc/etc fine. No problem.
Being forced to *participate in and/or advocate* for or against a religious principle or political/ideological position, *there* is where the problem lies.
For example, an LGBT-owned bakery should not be forced to provide a cake with "God Hates Fags" on it for the Westboro Baptist nutjobs. Provide a generic cake? Yes. Provide the message? No.
Same thing here. Provide a cake, yes. Participate in advocating LGBT practices, no.
Why is this so difficult a concept to understand? What gives anyone the right to force someone else to participate in and/or advocate for something they are fundamentally opposed to?
Strat
"This isn't right. You only raised medical insurance premiums by $X-thousands for a year of lower quality medical insurance? Bros, do you even Obamacare? Here, lemme show you..."
Wow, that works for pretty much anything US Federal Government-controlled/regulated.
Strat
It doesn't matter how the fuck the government wants to tax individuals vs. businesses. You can comply with the law or suffer the consequences of not doing so.
So you would punish a gay owned & operated photography-for-hire that refused to take on a job photographing the next Westboro Baptist Church anti-gay protest? You would punish that business if it were owned by Muslims and refused to photograph a gay or Jewish wedding?
Being a law does not make something right. It was the law that blacks sat at the back of the bus. So by your reasoning Rosa Parks should have 'suffered the consequences'?
You really should try thinking farther than your knees can jerk.
Strat