If you do, please know that it is possible the people at the booth are just low level employees with no say in the corporate policy and while these companies do deserve your ire, these individuals don’t deserve you yelling or screaming. By all means let them know your opinion and tell them that version is not welcome at the parade, but don’t attack or harass the employees.
Idk, Maybe instead of avoiding nazi spaces, people should take a page from their book and just invade them and overwhelm them. Idk about you, I have to put up with hearing and seeing bullshit daily, so my tolerance is high. A lot of these fascist can’t even handle a picture of a catboy lol
I personally don’t feel like lumping this in with the kind of shock humor that toilet humor is feels analogous.
This to me, reads just as surrealist humor that is meant to highlight the absurdity of some straight men’s homophobia not allowing them to interact with or do anything procieved as gay. Not that I think I needed to explain that to you, just highlighting where i am coming from.
This isn’t to say it cannot be shocking, or intended as such, I just don’t personally feel like its main purpose is to shock.
What a wonderful name for a delightful little snow pile.
So, before I begin, I want to bring back in some context that is important to the point I want to make. Alito made his statement in response to a juror fighting summary rejection from a case, in which the rejection was due to their belief that “homosexuality is a sin.” The plaintiff, in this case, identified as a lesbian.
I think it is very important to point out that Alito is being very careful in picking his focus of concern from a constitutional perspective as, you have to remember, the sixth amendment garuntees “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury”. To put it another way, the court try to eliminate, from they jury, pool any individuals whose bias would negatively affect the outcome of a case in a way not congruent with the law. To me, it seems very intentional that he would champion one constitutional right and neglect another as Alito, a Supreme Court Justice, should be taking all angles of the constitution into question. He should not take into account just those parts that align with his held bias and beliefs.
Now, how should we as individuals, considering both the 1st and 6th ammendments, broach asituation in which two individuals right clash?
I have tried to look into if there was any precedent on determining what happens in the case of conflicting constitution rights, but I could not find anything. So, as to my limited knowledge, I can’t really look to precedent (if someone knows anything about this, please share).
Personally, I would believe that since it could be the matter of someone’s freedom on the line in the case of a trial, I lean in favor of the summary dismissal. Not being on a jury does not, in any way, amount to an injury to said individual that in anyway compares to the possible ramifications of allowing bias onto a case in which someone’s life or property is on the line. The individual can continue to believe whatever regressive asinine dogma their religion subscribes to(and yes, I am showing my bias), while the case is decided by people more willing to only consider the law of this country and not some diety who has no authority here.
If you read the article it does not mean states will have to issue licenses to same sex couples in their own state, just, from my understanding, honor ones issued in states where it is legal (which while Obergefell stands is all of them). It is also important to note that the Supreme Court had the power to overturn legislation if it deems it unconditional, so, while it would be hard for them to outright overturn this bill using the constitution, since a state cannot hold religious preference due to seperation of church and state, it cannot be ruled out entirely. I feel it is likely they rule in favor of an individual, such as a county clerk, not having to issue a marriage license if it “goes against their religious beliefs”, which could basically mean a ban for large areas of some states with highly religious conservatives.
Not having constant updates is not necessarily a bad sign either. Developers have lives too and maybe something else is priority over small bug fixes in this project for them right now.
I hear this gif
I’m more of the camp it should warned that it is worse for gaming with an explanation of why, then just out right disallowing it. As was said, not all people are playing competitive nor does it present a problem for all games.
I think they assume that you follow their advice and are now “working for yourself”, which I assume to mean create your own business such as a consulting company, a store, etc. With that assumption, and this is obviously not legal advice, I believe, in the US, you don’t have to contribute to social security if your business has under a certain number of employees. I also think not all states require disability insurance under similar business size limits (this one I am less sure of).
What post are you replying to? What does this have to do with Trump saying he never swore to protect the constitution?
Speaking as someone who lives in a lower cost of living area, yeah it is not worth it.
“Only human intelligence can solve” gives answer
Illegal according to who?
The US? Why would China care, they are their own country with their own laws.
International courts? Who is enforcing those judgments?