Whew, glad we got that cleared up...can’t have hurtful talk. Its hurtful.

Ahhhh, bask in the clean efficiency of Hamilton Nolan’s “Utopia”.

We should burn it.

Now that’s some hard hitting investigative work!

“To put it another way: white people suffering gets Americans talking.”

“I’m going to be honest with you, we’re getting a little bit tired of having to write a blog post every time some dumbshit current or former athlete decides to endorse the very bad old man who is dangerously close to becoming our next president.”

...but Ticketmaster sets artificial price floors that prevent sellers from listing tickets below face value. This practice has recently been called out by the New York Attorney General, as it deprives fans the opportunity to buy tickets on a fair market.

What the hell happened to Hires?

What doesn’t make sense? This echo chamber of Democratic party boot-licking does nothing but endorse Totalitarian edicts at the Federal level, i.e. minimum wage, carbon taxes, “hate speech”, punitive income taxes, etc. So now Gawker is all concerned about altering the free market system? Spare me.

Maybe we should listen to them. Just a shot in the dark.

Are you implying that living in a society with robust private firearm ownership is akin to living in a failed state?

Gun companies outfit the police and military, which I understand are approved users of guns by modern tyrants and their cheerleaders. Maybe find out if the companies sell guns to normal citizens trying to defend their lives and property, and then you can take the stand to not support that injustice.

Whats wrong with being invested in gun companies?

This is horseshit.

God you guys are morons.

Can I not rent my house to someone who I found out had an abortion? Seems like discrimination based on my religious beliefs. Can I not hire someone because I know they cheat on their spouse? Sounds like a moral judgement. The conversation about gay marriage was about government recognition. It didn’t say anything…

My position is that it isn’t even intended to do what you think it is. It is not trying to “cure” discrimination. It’s intended to make public moral objections to a person’s sexual or gender status illegal. In other words, the public expression of certain religious beliefs in hiring or service, is no longer legal. It…

The article says it. Solid logic. There isn’t one scrap of elaboration as to how that “protection” occurs. Opposing a government action is not the equivalent of supporting the problem the action is supposedly designed to address.

“No, but at least we’re trying...it makes us feel good. It really sticks it to all these religious people who have a moral objection to the normalizing of my previously deviant lifestyle. But now it’s awesome and cool and I have a RIGHT to shame people who disagree with me.”

And this magic city proposition cures discrimination?