wolfriverjoe

The big problem I have with that view (homosexuality is clearly prohibited conduct) is that there's lots of stuff that is clearly and plainly a sin. Divorce for example. Do any of these businesses that want to refuse service to gays on "religious grounds" also want to refuse service to divorced people? Not that I've heard of. They want to pick and choose which sins they don't like and refuse to do business with only some of them. That's not refusing service on "religious grounds" that's just plain bigotry. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I'm not putting sexual orientation superior to religious beliefs. If someone's religious beliefs forbid them from doing business with homosexuals, then they shouldn't have a business open to the public in the first place. The cake bakers in Oregon (?) weren't being asked to approve homosexuality, they weren't being asked to attend the wedding. They were being asked to bake a cake. Which is what they did as a business. They chose to decide that the purchasers of the cake, or it's intended use offended them. When it was really none of their business. If someone wanted to come in and order a large cake and it ended up being used as a base for jello wrestling, would that have affected them? While anti-gay prejudice is declining, and hopefully will be mostly gone soon, if you don't think it's wide spread, you really haven't looked. It's big. If you don't believe racial segregation had any basis in religion, then you really need to study your history. Much of the arguments against inter-racial marriage were based on religion and backed by (mis)interpretation of the bible. Much like the anti-gay stances today (amazing parallels if you look closely). I think the gay refusing to serve the politician is amusing. I'm neither criticizing or supporting it. It's clearly retaliation for the politician's stance. Did the restaurant refuse to serve all politicians? That would be discrimination. As it would be if the restaurant refused to serve any and all lawyers. Refusing to serve politicians who voted for this bill isn't really discrimination (IMO). It's basing refusal to serve on behavior. Somewhat similar to refusing service to bikers wearing club colors. (bad analogy, but the best I can think of right now). "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

We already had that test. And failed. New Orleans in 05. The post-Katrina gun grab. The mayor issued his proclamation, the cops participated enthusiastically, and the people submitted. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I understand what you're saying from a theoretical viewpoint, but in practical terms it sounds like you would support de facto segregation, if not de jure. At some point, even if it is not a government mandate, the economic pressure to discriminate can be more powerful that the pressure not to. In other words, if you're the only lunch counter in town willing to serve blacks, you're probably going to lose all your white business. ^This. Once you have a business that is "Open To The Public" you assume certain obligations. Fire exits, safety rules, sanitation rules, more that don't immediately come to mind. It also means you can't discriminate. You can refuse service to particular customers, usually based on behavior (some restaurants have dress codes, for example). But you can't say "No Blacks" or "No Women" or "No Muslims." "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

There's a lot of truth in that, but there are a few instances where a jumper knocked out either on exit or in freefall woke up under an open reserve. Shook out the cobwebs an landed safely. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Sometimes you can also demo a rig. I've never tried that, but there are often vendors demoing rigs. Whether or not they will let you try a demo rig with a demo canopy is something I have no experience with. You might shoot an e-mail to PD (you mention the Pulse) and ask them. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

By "demo", do you mean canopy demo? All you do is go to "vendor row", find the manufacturer that you are interested in, walk into the tent and say "I want to try out a (insert canopy name here)." They will ask about your experience, skill level, wingloading and a few other things. There is usually a reasonable charge for it. Then they pull the canopy (usually already in a D-bag) out and swap it out with yours (pull the cutaway and swap risers). Popular canopies in popular sizes are often in high demand, so getting there first thing in the morning or getting on a waiting list might be necessary. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

The only money they lost was due to possibly increased insurance rates. If they didnt have liability insurance and had to pay out of pocket then they are idiots. Really? Idiots for not having insurance? Care to tell me where you can get liability insurance for anything in skydiving? There's "Trip and Fall" type liability for people on the DZ on the ground, but that's about it. Do you know what UPT used to be called? The "Uninsured Relative Workshop." That was the actual business name. Put there because they found out that you couldn't state in court that you had no insurance because it wasn't available. But you have to say the name of your company. And: I got a PM from someone on the BOD after my first post in this thread. Short version, USPA members agree to abide by the BSRs anywhere in the world. So, the answer is yes. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Most places, a child in state custody (foster care or similar) is cut loose at 18. No more housing, no more food, no more much of anything. Some states see the problems with this and offer various transitional programs, but for many, it's just a homeless shelter if they can't support themselves. http://crosscut.com/2013/02/15/Kidsatrisk/112965/aged-out-and-alone-18/ "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Zoolander "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

The big industries also have liability insurance available to them. So it becomes the insurance company's issue to litigate or settle. No such insurance available in skydiving. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

The problem is the real idiots don't leave usable organs. The catastrophic crashes don't leave much behind, and for the "DRT" ones, they often leave the body lay there for a while during the investigation. In both cases, the organs are useless. It's the low speed, no helmet crashes, where the body isn't too badly damaged, but there are extensive head injuries that give us "donorcyclists." "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Plus we don't get to carry the guns around, nor are we allowed to leave them around the house. Plus, you have to be licensed to purchase a gun. Plus the far majority of the 11 million guns are long guns. Well, the "carry them around" part has only been common in the US for about 20 years. Prior to Florida enacting their "Shall Issue" permits back in the early 90s, concealed carry was pretty rare. Since then the homicide rate has actually gone down. Although there are a lot more factors in the rate going down than the presence of a lot more guns being carried. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

not true As weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So Simferopol is part of the naval base at Sevastapol. Admittedly, there is a lot of confusion. It's not clear if these are actual Russian troops, or simply pro-Russian Ukrainians. But most of the indications are that it either is or will be Russian troops on the ground, outside of the Sevastapol Naval base. It is remarkably similar to the Georgian invasion in 08. Did you read the article I linked. It's in interesting overview on the whole situation. Far more on the events leading up to it, going back to the breakup of the USSR. Oops. forgot to include the link about the troops in Simferopol. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26379722 "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

No. By international law, the embassy is US sovereign territory. Having US troops there wouldn't constitute and invasion. By the same token, if Russian troops were only guarding the sailors and citizens at the Naval base in Sevastapol, then it wouldn't be an invasion. The base isn't sovereign Russian territory, but they have a legitimate presence there and the right to defend it. But the Russian troops are occupying a much larger area. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

What do you understand by the word "invasion"? Invasion is when troops from one country enter another country. Like Russian troops are doing right now on the Crimean Peninsula. Like they did in Georgia in 08. Admittedly, like the US did in Iraq in 03. This whole situation is a lot more complex than the story the news is telling, and Russia does have some valid reasons for doing it. Some of which use justifications provided by the US. And Russia has some pretty good reasons to be angry with Western Europe, NATO and the US. There have been promises broken and actions that are clearly seen as threats by Russia. Nerdgirl posted this on FB. There's a lot of the background and lead-up to this that isn't being told in the mass-market media stories. https://medium.com/the-bridge/54892d22ccbb "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Lace "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Gloves "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, it's the first thing that came to mind when I saw "Nutcracker." I had a feeling it would provoke a "reaction." That's what she does, or did. She hasn't been around for a while. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Banesanura "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Decide if it's worth having Muslims? When did we get to decide that? And what do we do if you decide that it's not worth it? It's idiotic shit like this that makes me very glad for the Bill of Rights. Here's an interesting thought - substitute the phrase "gun owner" in place of Muslim. The loud screaming from the pro-gun crowd (including me) would be deafening. Cries that you can't take away the rights of an entire group because of the actions of a few bad individuals. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

All about "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

The problem with that is background checks only show what you have done. Not what you are prone to do. Keep in mind that Cho, Holmes and Laughner all passed their checks. Although Cho shouldn't have, given his mental health history. And I have a real problem with just taking away some rights. If someone is too dangerous to be allowed to have a gun, why aren't they too dangerous to be allowed to run free. There are a lot of dangerous items other than guns. Cars, knives, homemade explosives have all been used. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

What about USPA group members not based in the United States? According to the USPA site there are group members in 29 foreign countries (I don't have the patience to click on each country to see how many total foreign group members there are). Don't know. Those DZs don't benefit from the work that USPA does with the FAA either. Perhaps the non-US DZs will be able to get waivers for this rule (pure speculation on my part). "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Given the litigious nature of the US, the (overall) laws and interpretations of waivers for minors and the sensational nature of the media, it was probably inevitable. Probably a knee-jerk reaction to the Oklahoma accident, but this has been coming for some time. Of course, the Non-USPA DZs (Lodi & West Tennessee come to mind) don't have to follow the BSRs, but with this in place as a "best practice" their asses are even further out in the wind in case of a lawsuit. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo