VakAttack

Yes. If one is a widespread religious belief and one is an individual person's belief, that holds more weight with me as to the allowances I'm willing to make to organized religions which I don't believe in. The tenet of "not making websites for gay people" is made up.

and SCOTUS had ruled that way. But they purposely mischaracterized to reach their desired outcome. Prioviding someone a service is not the same thing as adopting that speech and thus forcing them to speak. If I hire a painter to put a mural on the side of Willie's house saying "VakAttack is the greatest internet poster in the world" that does not mean the painter of said mural has adopted that speech as his own. For a more real world example, if a restaurant owner ordered a sign made that said "John's Restaurant: World's Best Hamburger" the sign-maker does not necessarily believe that John's Restaurant makes the world's best hamburger, he's providing a service. This woman wanted to be able to deny her (at the time fictional) services to an apparently fictional gay couple.

Where did I exclude a Muslim? Are you talking about comparing producing an image of Mohammed, a well-known central tenet of Islamic practitioners no no, vs. this woman's wish not to provide services to gay people? Should are laws be subjected to each individual's sincerely held religious belief, even if that doesn't conform w/ the widespread practice of that religion? Where does that stop? What if this same person claims she truthfully believes based on previous interpretations of Genesis 9:18-27 that black people are inferior to white people, should she be allowed to discriminate against them as well in terms of making a wedding web site?

Sure, that bonus hole thing sounds ridiculous, but from what I can tell it comes from one random charity in England where they offered it in their literature as a suggested alternative to check w/ people if they'd be more comfortable with that language, not a demand from the medical community that the language be changed for everybody all over the world. So yes, it sounds stupid to me, but it's a tiny thing from one group offered as a suggestion, not a "rebranding of the vagina." If we're going to get mad about every dumb thing someone says in the world...

Is that a serious question? Yes, I would have a problem if anybody, Muslim or not, discriminated against another group. If anybody has the idea that I prefer any organized religion over another, please allow me to dissuade you.

Nobody asked me a question.

The persecution complex some of y'all have is adorable

...it's from June 30. Twelve days ago. I didn't ignore it, you made no real point. Not producing imaged of Mohammed is a widespread tenet of practitioners of Islam. There's nothing in the Bible that says you can't make website for gay people, and you can see that from the number of Christian people throughout the country and the world that both accept gay people and provide them services.

It's 100% what the case is about. Her business wasn't open when she filed suit, I don't know if it's open now. It turns out the alleged "request" she got from a gay couple to work on a website is likely fake, either by her or (less likely) someone trolling her unopened business, and she sought approval to not have to serve gay people (again for a business that wasn't even open at the time). Here's some reporting on the alleged request from the "gay couple" showing that it is, in fact, fake: https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-lgbtq-rights-colorado-business-owner-made-up-claim-2023-6

Me: Here's data with sources and studies. You: No, your data is stupid and also I don't enjoy the presentation. I however will bring nothing outside of my opinion to the subject. My dude, it's a wrestling forum, I'm not going to write you a dissertation, and as you've already displayed, it would be pointless because you would dismiss all of it immediately without any examination based off one piece of it that you don't like. However, I understand, when you're extremely long and your opinion is not based on anything other than your political ideology, that almost has to be your default defense.

Has there ever been a "dead person voting" situation? Sure, but they are extremely rare. Has a dead person ever voted for a Democrat? I'm sure it's happened, but again, exceedingly, exceedingly rare. There is zero evidence of any sort of widespread voting fraud throughout the country. It would be a stupid crime to commit with very little ROI. It's relatively easy to detect, which is again why you don't it. The boogeyman you're citing is a figment of your imagination. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/debunking-voter-fraud-myth

I'll take "things that almost never happen" for $1,600, Alex.

Yeah. I don't think it's anger, usually, it can just present that way sometimes. Other than the time he told me to suck Pyles' dick. Like I said, Willie is good people in my book, even if we disagree politically on many things.

Willie definitely can come off as angry on-line occasionally, but I can only tell you from my personal experience he's always been very happy and pleasant every time I've met him in person. Good dude.

This was literally the same argument about abortion rights and yet, here we sit.

Yes, it's very believable that people using Threads will suddenly discover the existence of Twitter.

Lol. His whole long ass Tweet is "Twitter is doing great because the CEO and the owner say it is!"

Of "cis" or of "cisgender"? Cisgender seems to date back to a 1994 researcher named Dana Defosse as a neutral term. The term "cis" is a Latin prefix meaning "on this side". https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/cisgender-meaning Are 'cisgender,' 'cisgendered,' and 'cis' slurs? A slur is a word or phrase that is intended to insult or disparage someone. A term that is neutral can become a slur over time, but our current evidence shows that cisgender and its variants are overwhelmingly used neutrally.

This is just repeating back the things Elon claims to be true as truth. In practice, he's censoring more than the previous regime, including in other countries where he is censoring wildly where the previous regime used to fight the censorship demands in the courts. In his time at Twitter he has had multiple scandals surrounding his alleged "free speech absolutism" (the aforementioned demands from governments like India and Turkey; the banning of multiple independent journalists for discussing his other banning of the "Elon Jet" account, his current campaign against the term "cis" which he has unilaterally decided is a slur, etc.) As to what Twitter was censoring before Musk took over, "legit science and information" is your interpretation of it, but the wide, wide majority of the scientific and medical community disagree with you (presuming you're talking about the vaccines, if not please specify what you're talking about). You feel it's "less political" because the new guy conforms more with your political alignment. Ask the people in India or Turkey how open they find it. And to be clear on ALL of the above: that's his right. It's a private company that he owns. But the rest of that is, as the Big Guy says, malarkey.

Laughing at the failure plus hubris of another is as American as apple pie. Hell, every four years, most members of the losing party in the presidency pretend that they're rooting for the winning party to succeed, but they all revel in the failures of that winning party.

A classic example of you insisting something is true, thus making it true. A tautology of ridiculousness that you are just hurling around with a link to a 57 page document that you provide no context as to where in the document you're citing to or how what the sources of the data are coming from, all from a questionable source that libertarian website reason.com describes as 'one of the biggest purveyors of bad statistics dressed up as "human trafficking awareness"'. https://reason.com/2020/01/10/super-bowl-sex-trafficking-myths-return/

People use some wild ass language when they're being ridiculous, lol.

The Dominion settlement is, by orders of magnitude, the biggest payout for this type of lawsuit in American history. The only bigger award was from a jury against Alex Jones. There is no feasible argument that this was good for Fox other than it prevented them from having to put some of their stuff more firmly and un-plausible-deniabilty-ly in the public eye. The standard for the plaintiff's to prove in this case was EXTREMELY high, so much so that most cases like this are dismissed out of hand....and Fox still paid that much money. I can buy the "it's cheaper to settle this case than to try it" in a lot of situations. That doesn't fly when you're paying THE LARGEST SUCH SETTLEMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

Unless the owner is extremely unlucky, surveillance video is unlikely to implicate anybody. The foot traffic is going to be too high, the incident they're looking for too fine a detail. Unless the person literally goes into a panic as they're coming to the cubby and pulls out the bag to stare at it disbelievingly. Surveillance footage of high population/traffic areas isn't designed for that it's designed to be able to help identify the presence of people and any obvious actions, not figure out every small movement.