Oh no. You aren't silly at all. I was just very unclear. I don't know if a five minute makeover is a thing. I just meant a makeup routine that you can do in five minutes - cause who has more than that, right? Pick a few items that work for you. I like double duty items - a bb cream that moisturizes, has spf and evens out my skin, a mascara that conditions my lashes, a lipstain or lipstick that makes my lips feel soft. That's usually it for me. So I guess mine would be a 2 minute makeover. ;). Sorry to be confusing. I hope this makes more sense.

I have sensitive skin and am a fitness professional...in the hot and humid South. The only makeup I have found that is long lasting but doesn't cause burning or breakouts is Younique. It's not in dept stores but they have a money back guarantee so you can exchange colors as many times as you want for free.

I'd start with a five minute makeover. That little step makes me feel so much better. Then maybe go to nordstroms or another store that has personal shoppers. Find someone who can help you look great at the weight you are now. I know most of us want to lose weight and feel like we shouldn't spend money on bigger sizes that we don't want to be at. We deserve to look great at any size and the right styles and fits can do wonders.

ðŸ‘ðŸ‘👠This times a thousand!

I'm curious and not trying to be snarky. However, is there anything that one entire group agrees with? I have a few gay friends who don't think gay marriage should be a thing. (their terms not mine). So does that mean since some homosexuals disagree on SSM that the baker was justified? Also, the baker didn't say he wouldn't make a cake for homosexuals. He said he wouldn't make a wedding cake for a SSM. That's a finer point. Office Depot might help all sorts of Christians as long as they are printing non pro-life items. The baker might bake all sorts of things for homosexuals, just non- wedding cake items. What is the actual legal difference? True question not snark

We must have been posting at the same time. Good to know they changed their minds

Here is the response from the Asst Gen Cousel of OD: https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/9-11-15-Ltr.-to-T.-Olp.pdf He says that because the prayer contained words like "killing children in the womb" and "grisly trade in baby body parts" it falls within the corporate inflammatory language policy. I still just see it as descriptions. Sure you may disagree with them but I don't see it advocating violence against PP. I mean if a pro-choice group wanted to print flyer describing horrible conditions in some foster homes or in the streets or the horrors or something else I wouldn't consider that inflammatory. I'd think it was describing and advocating for their point of view. Again, I think the best recourse is going to the media and getting the story out - as has been done. I wouldn't sue but I would sure make sure that everyone knew about it.

I think the right thing to do is for people who disagree to boycott Office Depot. Looking at OD fb page, it looks like that is what is happening.

I should have been more clear. I meant that since it notes that this is a prayer from a priest that is it obviously Catholic. I think in general if someone sees that Rev. so and so said something and see that it is the group Priests for Life they assume it is Catholic.

The flyer has an obviously Catholic prayer on it. I think a case could be made that the clerk refused service because of the customers religion. Anti-abortion groups aren't protected but we do still have freedom of religion. If the clerk didn't want to print it, someone else could have done so.

Actually I think they would be quite similar. They would be focusing on only one part of a larger whole - but a single part that colors many people's perceptions of the larger organization. But I still wouldn't see it as inflammatory or threatening.

If I were an employee who was going to tell a customer I wasn't going to print something, I think I'd make sure that I gave it more than a quick glance. Just printing it for them = quick glance. Deciding that you are going to tell the customer it is against company policy = looking it over carefully.

You see that as inflammatory rhetoric? Really? I see it as cherry picked facts and a prayer. I have no idea if the facts are correct so it certainly could be an error riddled flyer at worst. I just dont see how this flyer is an example of inflammatory rhetoric or encouraging the persecution of anyone. Would it be different if it were a flyer posting about bullying and assault facts against homosexuals and then a prayer for those who oppose gay marriage to change their minds? Woudl that be advocating the persecution of people who oppose gay marriage? I just don't see it.

What info is copyrighted? It looked like quotes were taken from different sources but that those sources were cited. Is that not ok? (She says looking around cause, gulp, she may have inadvertently broken copyright law in her shady past if that is copyright infringement)

Where in the flyer did it advocate persecuting people who support abortion rights?Would it be ok for the baker to tell the gay couple they could make their own Betty Crocker cake and use his oven just cause he had a policy in place?

😂😂😂

I agree. But I think it is right for citizens to examine those rulings. If enough citizens believe that SCOTUS got it wrong, then they can try to amend the Constitution or have their legislators draft another law that might address what SCOTUS didn't accept as constitutional in the first one. I know some have proposed retention elections for justices and no longer having lifetime appointments. I see both sides of this. I do think that a long but finite term (say 15-20 years) for a Justice could be a good thing. It would still allow them to act free from concern of political repercussions.

Divorce here is already a crap shoot. Our standard marriage law doesnt change that. I guess my thought is that if there is a marriage contract that people sign delineating what happens in the event of divorce it might actually standardize things more. Naive and wishful perhaps.And I do think there would be a standard contract template - similar to power of attorney or simple will that you can get now. Or heck, there could be a turbo tax type software that asks questions about assets, custody, etc and then comes up with a contract. I guess I'm jaded on the whole marriage contract now. There really isn't a contract. The person with the best lawyer generally comes out a lot better in acrimonious divorces. I guess I hope that having the equivalent of a prenup for all type marriage contract would help that.

Deciding what is and what isn't Constitutional is not black and white. There are lots of penumbra and emanations that arise when trying to determine that. Look at Bush v Gore. Lots of people thought and continue to think that SCOTUS improperly and illegitimately decided an election. Of course, I can declare it illegitimate but that doesn't amount to anything. It is still the law of the land.

I like the idea of getting government out of marriage. Let consenting adults enter into contracts. There can be "union contract" templates that would include how assets, custody, etc will be handled if the parties decide to terminate the union. Consenting adults enter into contracts. Govt enforces the penalties for breach of contract if one party fails to follow the contract. Then we wouldn't have to have any lawsuits over who can get married and who can't. I know that would still lead to problems but our current system has lots of problems too. This at least gets judgement and religion out of it.

This is from a conservative think tank so the analysis will come from that point of view. I think it is a good resource though because it clearly details the reasons why they believe the court overstepped its bounds. http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/rule-of-law/judicial-activism

I thought the issue was that her right to not have her name on the license should be respected not the right to prevent the marriages. Of course I could be all wrong. I feel like this is yet another example of a movement picking the wrong victim to rally behind.

I just read that she didn't become a Christian until 4 years ago- after all of her marriages. I think a lot of newer converts to any religions or way of thinking can be very passionate and dogmatic. Didn't we have a discussion about a new athiest who was being sort of aggressive in fb posts? Or essential oil converts. :) Not excusing her. Just clarifying that one point and starting to understand a bit more why she is doing this. Perhaps she feels so strongly because this had been a "sin area" in her life. (quotes because she views them as a sin area not judging divorce or divorced people). Again not excusing just musing.

The courts had settled the dispute before Newsom did what he did. (Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996. Newsom acted in 2004) And Davis is appealing to freedom of religion, not a nebulous divine revelation. You may not like her religion but the right of people to practice their religion is still protected regardless of how poorly you view it. I do not agree with Davis' argument that this is a freedom of religion issue. I just think both Davis and Newsom were wrong. However, I think they both felt there were larger moral issues at stake. Edited to fix many grammar violations. Sheesh. My license to type should be revoked.

But it wasn't a gray area. It was clearly against the state statutes and he knew it. He just didn't agree that it was morally correct. And just like Davis, he ordered others to follow his moral code when he ordered the city clerk to issue the gay marriage licenses. That's where I have a problem with both of them. It's one thing to challenge a law you find morally wrong. It's another to order others to do something illegal. (I don't know if the SF clerk was on board or not. All the articles I read just say he ordered them to start issuing licenses. That puts the clerks in a bad position.) I agree with you that people have the right to challenge the law and face consequences for their choices.