Complex sensational version: 1. Take flight lessons. 2. Get airport credentials. 3. Open gate with credentials 4. Drive explosive laden car next to airplane. 5. Boom.
Optimized sensational version: 1. Drive explosive laden car through fence. 2. Drive explosive laden car next to airplane. 3. Boom.
This is why the best security is not checkpoints, machines, and fences but getting to know your fellow students/pilots/workers and keeping an eye open for weird things.
You've wandered a significant distance from the original problem. The whole argument you give above is irrelevant. You switched to arguing that the federal government shouldn't be able to create any laws regarding employment. You can replace contraception with minimum wage and your argument is unchanged. You've moved it from a First Amendment Issue to a States' Rights/Federal Powers Issue and thus you are completely off topic.
Additionally the religious text you provide is irrelevant as the country in question is not a theocracy.
If you'd like to address the original issue, specifically why you feel a church has the right to force it's view point on non members, I'd be happy to answer. However if you continue to change the subject I won't bother.
... no one holds a gun to your head and force you to work for a catholic.</quote>
I thought of a shorter argument.
Why is the burden on the employee? If Catholics don't want to follow employment law then they shouldn't start businesses. No one is holding a gun to their head.
First off your description of the situation is incorrect. The government is forcing no views on Catholics. Before this Catholics were free to not use contraception. After this Catholics are still free to not use contraception. What view is being forced on them?
Choosing to do something yourself based on your religious beliefs is religious freedom. Forcing someone else to do something based on your religious beliefs is religious oppression.
The classic example is: Your freedom to swing your arms ends at someone's face. According to you it's the person who get's hit fault for being in the way. I mean they have the choice of not standing there right?
You're saying that if random murder is a religious belief of the murder church then it's a constitutional violation if you prevent members of the murder church from murdering. Yes this is an extreme example but that is on purpose. If one's beliefs are forced on others how do you regulate it? You've forced a situation where the state has to then either sanction churches, sanction specific dogma of the churches, or permit literally any action under the logic that it is a religious belief. That's the complete opposite of separation of church and state.
Dead Rising 1&2 (from Capcom) are prime examples of Japanese designers taking things off the rail. It's mechanics driven and the story is completely dependent on what you choose to do, including multiple endings.
Also it's from an old school Japanese developer, he created Megaman.
So the current situation with Catholics forcing their religious beliefs via contraceptives on non-catholics and Santorum trying to force his religious views on homosexuality on atheists is not analogous?
How is Santorum's attempt to force a belief set different than the Taliban trying to force a belief set?
Even if you trade marked it any one is free to use it. You can't stop me from naming my kid the_raptor. At that point if my kid want's to sell slashdot posts they can call them the_raptor's slashdot posts and you can't do a thing about it, regardless of your trade mark.
Slashdot Mirror
By that logic my statement is obviously true as many cost less.
That's nice but irrelevant as I never mentioned your laptop.
I reject the assertion in your first sentence. Please defend.
Why can you only compare it to an apple laptop?
Do you have a real point or just snark?
It still costs more than a laptop and does less than a laptop.
Complex sensational version:
1. Take flight lessons.
2. Get airport credentials.
3. Open gate with credentials
4. Drive explosive laden car next to airplane.
5. Boom.
Optimized sensational version:
1. Drive explosive laden car through fence.
2. Drive explosive laden car next to airplane.
3. Boom.
This is why the best security is not checkpoints, machines, and fences but getting to know your fellow students/pilots/workers and keeping an eye open for weird things.
Self destructing DVD were a horrible idea. Such a waste of resources to watch something once and throw it away.
Sorry about the previous short answer.
You've wandered a significant distance from the original problem. The whole argument you give above is irrelevant. You switched to arguing that the federal government shouldn't be able to create any laws regarding employment. You can replace contraception with minimum wage and your argument is unchanged. You've moved it from a First Amendment Issue to a States' Rights/Federal Powers Issue and thus you are completely off topic.
Additionally the religious text you provide is irrelevant as the country in question is not a theocracy.
If you'd like to address the original issue, specifically why you feel a church has the right to force it's view point on non members, I'd be happy to answer. However if you continue to change the subject I won't bother.
Your premise is invalid. The view that's it's OK to pay for contraception is not protected. The view to not use contraception is protected.
Your argument is that since the murder church believes murdering random people is a religious belief they are free to ignore the law against murder.
I thought of a shorter argument.
Why is the burden on the employee? If Catholics don't want to follow employment law then they shouldn't start businesses. No one is holding a gun to their head.
First off your description of the situation is incorrect. The government is forcing no views on Catholics. Before this Catholics were free to not use contraception. After this Catholics are still free to not use contraception. What view is being forced on them?
Choosing to do something yourself based on your religious beliefs is religious freedom. Forcing someone else to do something based on your religious beliefs is religious oppression.
The classic example is: Your freedom to swing your arms ends at someone's face. According to you it's the person who get's hit fault for being in the way. I mean they have the choice of not standing there right?
You're saying that if random murder is a religious belief of the murder church then it's a constitutional violation if you prevent members of the murder church from murdering. Yes this is an extreme example but that is on purpose. If one's beliefs are forced on others how do you regulate it? You've forced a situation where the state has to then either sanction churches, sanction specific dogma of the churches, or permit literally any action under the logic that it is a religious belief. That's the complete opposite of separation of church and state.
I haven't stated my views. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I guess you didn't understand our posts then. I'm not contesting his position I'm reinforcing it.
Dead Rising 1&2 (from Capcom) are prime examples of Japanese designers taking things off the rail. It's mechanics driven and the story is completely dependent on what you choose to do, including multiple endings.
Also it's from an old school Japanese developer, he created Megaman.
You just proved your opponents point.
:)
You're admitting the validity of the poll.
You're saying America is now in favor of gay marriage, which it didn't used to be in the past.
That was easy.
The fake residency is the only thing I was addressing.
I don't know enough about the school thing to respond to that point.
It's one more poll than you've shown.
So your position is that no one can say anything bad ever?
Or no one really cares. It's a fairly common practice. The Clinton's had nothing to do with New York until Hillary wanted a seat in Congress.
So the current situation with Catholics forcing their religious beliefs via contraceptives on non-catholics and Santorum trying to force his religious views on homosexuality on atheists is not analogous?
How is Santorum's attempt to force a belief set different than the Taliban trying to force a belief set?
Even if you trade marked it any one is free to use it. You can't stop me from naming my kid the_raptor. At that point if my kid want's to sell slashdot posts they can call them the_raptor's slashdot posts and you can't do a thing about it, regardless of your trade mark.
You don't know what bullying means.
503 seems to be an understatement in that case.
Not that simple.
What if the sensor malfunctions and the tank blows up? Do we need sensors on the sensor? How deep does the rabbit hole go?
Thank you. That article argues my point. Everyone knows what happened.
With Sealand it would simply be "Wikileaks is offline." followed by "Wikileaks' servers were destroyed."