Leaderboard

I forgot about that study. Great article, thanks for posting it! So I guess the answer to the OP is a resounding yes. Suffice it to say, we're born this way.

Sweet sower story haha. Looking forward to that travel plan. We could film it and make it a morning show. "Skinny and the bear - A cup of Travel"

That sounds lovely! I'm sure we'd have nice afternoon chatting and putting the world to rights. I bet polar bears can really handle their drink though? I'm a bit of a lightweight these days. It wouldn't be a problem in the UK if you are black or gay. (are you? - not that I care either way. ) I think maybe the US is still a bit behind the UK and the EU when it comes to not seeing skin colour..... although a lot people still hold prejudices in private. I have been shouted at for being white in a London before though... and a Pakistani bloke hit me for being white once in a town near London, but that was a long time back and you have to think what that person might have been through to drive him to hate me because of my skin colour.... maybe he was just an arsehole...... or maybe he'd been called a 'Fucking Paki bastard' so many times he just flipped and lashed out (at a 16 year old skinny boy who was half his size - brave lad). I learnt that I could take a punch that day though - I was still standing after it, even though I saw stars and went a bit wobbly. I also learnt later that he had hit about 10 other young white kids the same day on his crusade against whites.... as I said - Something must have happened to him to hate us that much.

If I operated a bakery that specialized in customized products I absolutely would. I would happily accept money from all paying customers. It would be bad for my business not to,. Nope, all 50 states.

Why should anyone have to hide anything? Neither are illegal. The comparison is the struggle both groups have had to be recognised as normal legal human beings. Both groups have faced prejudices of varying and different levels - often with real threat to the individuals. Why not compare them? I suppose their troubles have been very different... you never went to prison for being black. People don't beat you up ridicule you for being black. I guess we can't appreciate what levels of violence and oppression some individuals have been subjected to for being black or gay as I am neither.

1. Buoyant elevators, so they can float above the water level. Add foam to the bottom, increase counterweight. 2. If the city's sewers can't handle the downfall, it's unlikely there is a cost-effective way to redirect the flow to farms. 3. Stop Climate Change. Stronger storms are associated with global warming. Infrastructure built to past spec doesn't handle this new reality well.

Trying to buy a cake for a wedding is not equal to a Christian wearing an anti gay-marriage slogan t-shirt. Gay marriage is not anti Christian. Your analogy is not an apples to apples comparison. Christian bakers are not being asked to bake or tolerate anti Christian slogans. Gay marriage legal. Gay couples are free to marry in the U.S.. A gay couple getting married is no more a political statement than is a black person selecting where they sit on a bus. It is settled law and not some sort of ongoing protest.

If you don't want to see, then you will not see. I see activists seeking out staunchly Christian bakers, and ordering cakes with provocative messages on them. You see nothing of the sort. Just innocent people wanting a cake. There are none so blind as those who will not see. One of the few true sayings from the bible. http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016/october/crippled-by-lgbt-targeting-christian-bakers-close-shop So do I, but then, I think all of Christianity is ridiculous. Just because YOU think it's ridiculous, that doesn't mean it is. If only everyone thought the same, it would all be fine, I'm sure. But presumably Pizzas to cakes is ok? Really, the point I'm making is that the anti-discrimination laws (which I support) are not put in place for activists to force unwilling people to take some part in a political campaign that they disagree with. They are there to stop discrimination in commerce. I think the bakers have used the wrong defence, that's all. If they make it clear that they are happy to provide a non-political cake to gay people, they would stand a much better chance in court. If it's a case of political activism targeting innocent Christian bakers, I'd like to see it fail. If it's bigoted Christians discriminating in a nasty way against a gay couple just wanting a cake, I'd like to see THAT fail.

It occurs due to refraction of light.It slows down as it enters the block bending the light towards the normal and allowing the glass block to appear thinner.Check it in here with examples :https://www.themodernsciences.com/refraction-definition-and-examples/

That's absolutely fine, if it's just a case of an innocent couple ordering a cake for their wedding. However, these cases seem to be cropping up too frequently to be just normal trade. It looks suspiciously like activists are selecting committed Christian bakers, with provocative orders, fishing for a refusal, so that they can portray themselves as wronged and discriminated against. And not just in the USA. A similar case was brought in Northern Ireland. http://felixonline.co.uk/articles/2018-06-23-the-curious-case-of-the-gay-cake/ I think if the baker suspects that he's being used in a crusade, he's entitled to refuse. So long as he makes it clear that it's being used in a political campaign that he is objecting to, rather than serving gay customers. Would a newspaper owner have the right to refuse to carry an advert for gay marriage rights? It's a political stance, and you surely have the right to refuse to support a political campaign, if you disagree with it? Would I have to bake a cake in the shape of a gun, with a gun rights message on it, if I was a lifelong committed anti-gun activist? (which I am). That would seem perverse to me. Surely there's a freedom there, that overrides the customer's rights? After all, nobody is barring the customer from getting a cake. They are just saying "If you want a political cake, get it elsewhere". So long as the baker made it absolutely clear that they were happy to supply that customer with a non-political cake, they should have the right to refuse a political one.

How many times have you had to explain your lifestyle or world view to a baker? It is ridiculous. No one should have to justify themselves to a stranger in order to receive customer service at retail store.

What I don't understand is that people belive so blindly once it is in a 'paper' There is sooo much wrong with the relativity theories of einstein. He was a rather stupid man, his wife did the math for him! man o man.

Let's wait a year or two and see, if SR will still be considered as the best solution. Funny, that after 100 years, it is still considered as a THEORY and not a functional model, like QM, EM, MHD and many other ones... It doesn't invalidate SR - but in many ways replaces it... Look, how long ago those papers were published - most of them around 2 years ago. Give them another 2 to 5 years and we'll see... And yet you repeat some statements, without giving a single thought about them... "Time doesn't flow for light..." Why? "Because the theory says so...", "Because everybody accept the SR - so it has to be correct...". "It's incorrect to use photons as frame of reference" Why? "Because SR doesn't allow it...", "Because Einstein said so...". You see, this is the difference between us - I won't accept any claim, without spending some time, thinking about it... You accept claims, just because everybody tell you, that you have to accept them... I accept them, only when I understand their meanings and only after they will make sense for me... If something doesn't make sense, or can be easily disproved by well known facts, then I reject it - and until someone won't prove me, that it is in fact correct, I will treat it as useless junk (no matter, if it was Einstein, who said so, or if everyone around tries to force my acceptance). Simple and well known fact, that each photon has it's own timeline/history proves clearly, that it has to experience flow of time - this is for me more than enough, to conclude, that Einstein made in this case a mistake. And because, couple minutes of thinking is enough, to figure out a solution, which will allow me to use photons as reference - it is clear to me, that the issue is not in the idea, to use speed of light as a reference, but in the theory, which gives us invalid results... When I see, that observations don't match my predictions, my first guess is, that there's something wrong with the model - and not that 70% of mass in the Universe is invisible and beyond any kind of perception.... But it's most likely because I'm not a professional scientist....

science can't prove that God exists, it is science fault,

yes, there is a God, he created human, earth, sky, Moon, sun, stars, aer & everything... these things cannot be created itself. Do you think it created by accidentally? (URL removed by mod; see rule 2.7)