Is this a gain only for women or also men? I think it's great either way, but it might be easier to sway conservative men if you can prove the benefit is for everyone.

Blakes! Now I have to learn about and try Starcut too! Haven't heard of that one

Blake's, or Starcut? Either way they're both amazing ciders.

[removed]

Happened to me! Lol 30 years of denial on why being close to my other woman friends made me awkward... Turns out I'm Bi and everyone's hot!!

There was nothing hateful in that response. What is hateful is your take on this whole story.

[removed]

And reading that you’re sad made me happy. So it balances out.

Facts vs confirmation bias. You were sure your point made sense and you even found an article written by an EV media writer (the bottom of the barrel in terms of journalism) that you believed backed it up. With scrutiny of the data in that article, it's quickly evident that it's not proving high take up rates of EVs in rural areas. Growing take up rates... sure... but if you sold one car last year and 3 this year, it's an amazing 200% growth rate... which is barely a scratch on the surface.

You seem upset that I called you out... ? 🤣 Heaven forbid I write more than a short one liner to show my intellectual superiority to others, and instead show actual thoughtful evidence and consideration to a topic.

Tthis is why misinformation spreads. People are so stinking lazy and refuse to look past their own biases and do actual research and fact checking before posting shit as if it's a fact.

[removed]

[removed]

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Posting on Reddit doesn’t solve anything.

>You want "blacks not wanted" signs up at restaurants?

I'm sure as long as he's not black, he wouldn't mind.

>Forcing a person to accept a theory as a law is the same as forcing a religion onto them

He says as he laments that it is harder to force his religion into people now.

And I see what you're trying to do by inaccurately labeling homosexuality "a theory." But "theory" doesn't mean "thing I don't want to accept."

Actual scientific research leaves no doubt that sexuality isn't a choice. You don't have to accept it, it's just there.

And frankly, nobody cares if you accept that or not. This law doesn't force you to believe anything. You can still be as bigoted as you want when it comes to LGBTQ issues. Hell, you can still be a racist! But you can't discriminate against people based on race or sexual identity.

They don't get to discriminate against you, you don't get to discriminate against them. If you don't like equality, you're living in the wrong country.

Mice! Ugh. I used to think the same way but after some reading, I learned that we are weirdly similar (even when they haven't 'humanized' the mice). I still can't help being upset by that. I will be wat hinges closely to see human studies and then trials. I love molecular medicine! Let's hope they find the right switch to flip, to the right light.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[removed]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Do you ever answer questions, or just dodge them and ask another?

Religious freedom means that you have the right to believe whatever it is you believe and worship however you wish to worship, so long as it doesn't trample on the liberties and sovereignty of others.

You may absolutely believe from your religious teachings that Black people should be discriminated against. You may not, however, refuse to hire Black people based on that belief.

You may believe that women are objects and belong to their husbands. That does not supercede their right to autonomy and give you permission to rape or beat them.

So in summary, "religious freedom" means you can believe and practice any faith, but you cannot force others to participate in your practicing thereof or violate any existing rights of others for the purposes of your religion.

I need a little bit of clarification, why is what a problem?

Previously gender identity and sexual orientation were only protected because of Supreme Court precedent, and unfortunately we have learned that those are not permanent under this current court. This bill is the Michigan government saying "We don't care if the Supreme Court overturns their previous rulings, we are keeping it"

Actually given that we live in a democracy, discussing my dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs in a public place is both a necessary and vital part of the political process.

Absolutely not. It is a fundamental principle of a specific religion that is widely practiced throughout the world. You want religious freedom without conditions? Sharia Law should then be allowed in the US.

The ironic thing is that if Jesus were here today he would want those that are persecuted and hated to be welcomed and supported by his followers but that’s a conversation a significant number of Christians don’t want to have.