“Yes, they talk of inequality "hitting" someone, as if it were a force unto itself instead of a consequence. All this operates on an unspoken warrant that everyone's income is supposed to be equal in the first place, but that's based on nothing at all, has never been the case, and never will be.
Furthermore, everyone in a position to sit at a computer and read this story has much, much more than a huge number of people in the world, but that "inequality" doesn't bother them—only the one between more successful Americans and themselves, because they want to pick those pockets.”
Dec 9, 2013 at 20:28:00
“I don't think she's up to the challenge of singling out the very worst thing she's done in her career. Then again, why be picky? There are so many awful, awful things to choose from.
Anyway, she's previously said it was that one terribly lip-synced MTV awards show performance of hers, in which she was noticeably overweight and uninterested. Celebs in the audience were visibly laughing.”
“"'My parents are Republicans, and I'm not. They didn't vote for Obama, but when I was asked to sing at the inauguration, they were like, 'We can come.' And I was like, 'No, you can't,'" Perry adds. "They understood, but I was like, 'How dare you?' in a way.'"
Can anyone translate this into adult-speak so I might better understand?”
Sadie Girl 87 on Dec 9, 2013 at 17:52:04
“She probably didn't want her parents to become 'hypocrites' by attending a performance for the new President they did not support. Nothing wrong with that.”
Quimbombo on Dec 9, 2013 at 17:36:39
“In a nutshell? If you voted for McCain/Palin why in tarnation would you want to go to Obama's ignaguration?”
“I wish them every success. Fact is, as soon as the law allows something and it becomes more mainstream, two things will happen:
1. The bad effects of that thing will become more obvious
2. There will be people who push back against it for being mainstream
There was a huge popular movement for Prohibition, and it didn't end because that changed; it ended because the U.S. Treasury Department didn't have the resources to enforce it correctly during the terrible economy at that time, and because the criminals were acting out so much in the course of rum-running that the cure was worse than the disease.”
JohnThomas on Dec 9, 2013 at 14:35:16
“There is no way to enforce a prohibition the people do not want - no matter how many resources you have. After the billions we have spent on the fraudulent marijuana prohibition, that much should be obvious.
What "bad effects" do you imagine will become obvious? People will push back against it for being mainstream? Like people push back against milk for being mainstream? - Sorry. That doesn't make sense - just like the insanity of the monstrously destructive, counter-productive, freedom-strangling FRAUD of marijuana prohibition.”
Matthew Conover on Dec 9, 2013 at 09:41:45
“pot has been mainstream for almost 20 years in California and the sky has yet to fall.”
kitcumbie on Dec 9, 2013 at 08:03:24
“Won't read angry replies? I'm surprised you can read at all. History means nothing?”
jrd000000001 on Dec 9, 2013 at 07:56:25
“Marijuana is already very mainstream. Whatever "bad" effects there are, we are already seeing them.”
“It would be different by being more efficient and sustainable, as covered in the article. Your suggestion that genetically modified plant organisms is "basically no different than" genetically modifying organisms for egg production could not be less accurate.”
Bandy888 on Dec 9, 2013 at 05:51:10
“Look what is happening to wheat, corn, soybeans etc in order to feed mass population and putting fuel in cars. If this is proven to be popular and cheap, the structure of plant materials will have to be changed in order to produce high yields.”
“No, I'm supporting legal firearms ownership. To claim I'm supporting mass shootings is to take the responsibility away from the criminal who committed the crime and to try to charge those who are not responsible with something they didn't do. If your position requires such a compromise of ethics and ignoring of the truth, you shouldn't be surprised many people won't support that position.”
“Even stats posted on HuffPost put the lie to your claim. Heck, France has more violent crime than the USA. And certain states in the USA with the most highly permissive gun laws are among the lowest in violence of any kind (example: Vermont, which allows unrestricted concealed carry!).”
“"Psychopath" has little technical meaning, and the article's author has no medical standing to weigh in on this topic. She's just using pop psychology pseudoscience terms to dress up complaining about her ex-boyfriends.”
Varden Longraf on Dec 8, 2013 at 05:51:58
“agree coming from a psych major diagnosing what it is to be psychopathic is a very difficult factor that has many outlaying factors and even those are so broad its not even used in psychology often because it was leads to a false diagnosis by instead combining the contributing factors of what is triggering the behavior many correct ones which may drive the persona are generalized like irrenman pointed out.”
“She wants people to burn in hell for saying things she didn't like, and threatens to punch them for talking? Hmm. I doubt HuffPost Women would really support this outlook being evenly applied to everyone.”
“1. Yes, of course. It's their own business. They don't owe anyone a cake. They should be able to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason. Why shouldn't they? If you disagree, then make me a cake right now, or I'm suing you.
2. That's a government employee, not a private business. Apples and oranges. Government has to treat everyone equally.
3. Yes, of course they can. See #1. Location is irrelevant; no one is owed a hotel room, no matter where they are.”
roguez24 on Dec 7, 2013 at 18:39:30
“Come on Irren...”
grandmablue on Dec 7, 2013 at 17:36:10
“Where have you been for the past 50 years? Since 1964, hotels and restaurant and stores haven't been allowed to refuse service to anyone based on their membership in a particular class.
The fact that you're 50 years out of date in understanding the laws of the land is just downright alarming. And even more alarming is that you don't know this.”
Tom Anderson Michigan on Dec 7, 2013 at 13:38:13
“Your lack of knowledge here is overwhelming. NO, someone in a business that services the PUBLIC doesn't get to discriminate who they sell to as long as the person has the money and is not violating any laws.”
Ganymede425 on Dec 7, 2013 at 11:02:03
“It is really too bad you live in a country that grants the government plenary power to regulate such things. Maybe you should go buy a private island and be the powerless President of your own Randian paradise.”
Terence Duke on Dec 7, 2013 at 07:12:33
“Wrong. When you open a business and obtain a city or state business license you agree to abide by all local city or state laws, and if those laws are on the books i.e.anti discrimination laws you can't select ...no blacks no Jews no .....sorry. That refuse service signs you so quaintly refer to are accurate in that it can apply to the no shirt no shoes rule but not a legally protected class”
Darr Sandberg on Dec 7, 2013 at 02:53:34
“"Yes, of course. It's their own business."
Ok. So Joe owns a gun, he should be able to use that gun to threaten other people - it is his own gun after all. According to you, his ownership of the gun gives him free reign to use it to harm other people.
Let's cut to the chase. People like you, who whine about how this business has the right to discriminate - pitch holy hell when your posts are deleted or your accounts are removed because you violated the TOS. Y'all don't respect the rights of businesses when they penalize your bad behavior, but are so zealous in protecting the rights of businesses to discriminate against other people who are not engaged in bad behavior.”
Zippy1169 on Dec 7, 2013 at 01:39:58
“Oh good God, are you for real with this. When you get a business license you must abide by the business laws of the state. In this state the business laws are very clear you cannot discriminate. You you can't live with that you should not have opened your business but if you did you are free to make the choice to comply or shutter the business.”
Cori527 on Dec 7, 2013 at 00:11:24
“You obviously have issues. The only problem is that you're not embarrassed enough to keep them to yourself.”
Tommygun264 on Dec 6, 2013 at 23:10:29
“WRONG. A public business is a public accommodation. Bet you really miss the days of "WHITES ONLY" businesses. What if in your private business Utopia ALL of the gas stations within a 200 mile radius decided they didn't want to sell to Jews? In the days of racial segregation black people died of easily treated injuries because the only hospitals nearby were "WHITES ONLY". You can discriminate all you want if you make your business a private club for members only, but if you want to run a business open to the public, you have to SERVE THE PUBLIC. What about this basic concept is so hard for you to comprehend? Bigotry is not the American way. Don't like that, then LEAVE. Go live in racist homophobic promised land. We'll be better off without you.”
rrrrbbbb on Dec 6, 2013 at 22:48:54
“But if you deny a hotel room based solely on the fact the person is gay, or black or a women.. Then you are wrong. Then you broke the law . Again, if you don't want to bake cakes , don't open a bakery.”
cminca on Dec 6, 2013 at 22:40:05
“I don't owe anyone a job. I guess I can put out an advertisement that says "no Christians need apply".
Because I have a "private" business--right?”
LeeBessToad on Dec 6, 2013 at 22:32:55
“You are just so blatantly ignorant of public accommodation laws it is mind boggling. You would be okay with a restaurant refusing to serve blacks A business should be able to refuse to pay taxes because it is against their religious beliefs. Same thing because what they are doing is violating the law All you are doing is letting them pick and choose which law they are violating.”
politician818 on Dec 6, 2013 at 22:28:16
“Businesses are open to the public. What part of that don't you understand?”
Stanley Bonk on Dec 6, 2013 at 22:18:19
“I believe the idea was that they were paid to bake a cake. Businesses don't usually grant favors when they produce a product for a customer.
On point three, I believe your missing the fundamental point of a business. it's not about "owing" anyone anything. You provide a good or service for a price. The government can and does have the duty to regulate the conditions of commerce.”
joemondo on Dec 6, 2013 at 21:58:39
“You're wrong, wrong, wrong.
Tell me, why do you people never bother to learn the actual law?”
AllenMcw on Dec 6, 2013 at 21:58:11
“Well at least you got 1 out of 3 right (#2). But you are so wrong on the other two. Like it or not a PUBLIC business does NOT have the right to refuse service to a protected class because of religious beliefs. Those are called public accomodations laws and they apply to religious folks too!
And they are perfectly constitutional. Some always want to misinterpret the 1st amendment as giving one carte blanche to break the law but that is NOT what the 1st amendment does. It protects your religious beliefs in a RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY like in a church, etc.......NOT in a PUBLIC business.”
Lefty Liberal on Dec 6, 2013 at 21:54:03
“1. I won't make you a cake. Since I'm not in the business of baking cakes to sell, then you have absolutely no grounds to sue me.
2. By law, if you are in business in a location that has non-discrimination laws then you must provide the service regardless of whether or not your religious beliefs say otherwise.
3. No they cannot. If you are a business, then you must follow the law, which does not give you the right to discriminate.”
“This is ridiculous. How can you force a private business to take on any customers it doesn't want? What an incredibly dangerous precedent and impugning of freedom. Who would want to give the business to bigots anyway?”
grandmablue on Dec 7, 2013 at 17:33:28
“Yeah, 'cause if any business is forced to serve a group they dislike, the whole country will fall apart at the seams and democracy will be destroyed.
Of course, that has been the law of the land since 1964. Still waiting for the disastrous consequences of requiring businesses in the South to serve blacks.”
Terence Duke on Dec 7, 2013 at 07:06:28
“That's your error. It is not a private business. Let's say you are a pharmacist at the local drug store. You come in with a Rx for birth control or HIV medication given by the doctor. Do you in all actuality believe if that pharmacist believed in no birth control or don't believe in gay sex he has a right to say no to filling it? And what if your only place in town?”
GoodWillHumping on Dec 7, 2013 at 00:30:12
“There is no dangerous precedent in this ruling. It isn't even a precedent at all.
"Impugning of freedom"? What the heck is that supposed to mean?”
JLGreenlee on Dec 7, 2013 at 00:20:11
“"No blacks allowed." Sound okay to you? Does that answer your question? You can't do that.”
politician818 on Dec 6, 2013 at 22:29:02
“Plenty of homophobes would give them business.”
juanjo on Dec 6, 2013 at 22:22:28
“I agree. it is ridiculous. For 48 years we have had laws on the books which forbade discrimination based upon specified categories like race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin and a little later, marital status, gender and sexual orientation [in some states]. That this baker thought that he could get an exemption based upon his misinterpretation of Christian doctrine [see 1 Cor. 5:9-13] is absurd.”
cwebster on Dec 6, 2013 at 22:15:51
“A business is NOT a church. If you serve the public, you don't discriminate.”
jresch20 on Dec 6, 2013 at 22:13:43
“Read up on Public Accommodation Laws”
Stanley Bonk on Dec 6, 2013 at 22:13:33
“A private business enters the public realm the instant they take in their first customer. They are "open to the public", as the signs often say.”
ChristianLady1 on Dec 6, 2013 at 22:10:22
“It must've been "incredibly dangerous" to desegregate businesses in the 60s, as it set "an incredibly dangerous precedent and impugned freedom." (using your logic)”
JGG59 on Dec 6, 2013 at 22:01:53
“So it would be ok then to turn down black couples and latino couples be cause of their religious beliefs????”
joemondo on Dec 6, 2013 at 21:57:55
“Never heard of the Civil Rights Act? Never heard about the laws against "Whites Only" businesses?
“Nope. Equal treatment under the law does not mean investigating everyone equally for everything. It never has meant this. Think Deeper about how silly your premise is; should everyone be regarded as equally likely to be committing every crime, even though this would render law enforcement paralyzed?”
““I have not heard him make a definitive statement that the way stop-and-frisk was carried out in New York City over the last 10 years was ineffective,” said Delores Jones-Brown, a former prosecutor and the director of the John Jay College Center on Race, Crime and Justice.
Perhaps that's because the statistics clearly show it WAS effective, as documented in articles here on HuffPost and elsewhere. In other words, you'll support him as soon as he publicly lies to support your agenda.”
ramonbatt on Dec 6, 2013 at 04:39:56
“Cops will place drugs in your packets and place you under arrest. They always win!”
“You have the attitude that you would rather raise a bully, than to raise a kid whose idea it is to show people there are things in this world for kids other than feeling like outcasts, feeling lonely, being harassed by bully kids like yours. You should raise a kid as good as this kid is. And, if you do have good kids, it wasn't of your doing.”