Hmmmm...I stand corrected and change my position.

You're correct, occupation is not a protected class, so I think the black bakery could legally refuse the police for being racist dicks.

If they want to be totally fair and balanced, they shouldn't refuse them, but I think the law allows it. The extreme of that 'slippery slope' ends with red and blue businesses (here in the US) and political affiliation identification required for service anywhere, so I don't recommend discriminating against customers for any non essential/personal reason....also, duh, money is money...dolla dolla bills yall!

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

I don't know, Net Neutrality (or lack thereof) is a slippery slope to a place where this sort of dystopia could exist without anyone really noticing.

He loves his wife. Sometimes they touch. on special occasions. Occasionally.

No but seriously the sexuality of either is irrelevant, surely? I'm not wild about people I don't know well touching me either... but come on Daryl. Were you worried that if you didn't put a firm stop to the arm touching it might slide all slippery like down to more.. ha... intimate...p.places....Dear Lord Jesus grant me the strength to resist...

Sorry. Really seriously now though, I don't think is fair to gay peeps to always assume the homophobe is trapped in the closet. It's probably not that fair to make fun of the closet dwelling homophobe either - somebody else taught them to hate themselves...and somebody else is an asshole. I hope you're not an asshole Daryl.

Canadian devil's advocate here.

We've got incredibly strict gun laws up here by comparison to the US. So our country has done the 'more than nothing' on gun laws. 3 days before the LA shooting we had a terror attack up here in Edmonton but the attacker used vehicles and a knife.

If we accept the rationale that current levels of freedom to own guns is leading to higher body counts and that restricting those freedoms will reduce body counts, that rationale is slippery.

Here's the parallel.

If we accept the rationale that current levels of freedom to 'practice religion' is leading to higher body counts then restricting those freedoms will reduce body counts.

Because, the Attacker in Edmonton was a Somali refugee. They had an ISIS flag in their car. The US tried to extradite him before Canada welcomed him with open arms. Canadian police even investigated him before when a co-worker reported him advocating genocidal ideas about Shiite scum.

We had a lot of potential red flags that we could have acted harder on or used for profiling and in this case having him in jail would've prevented the attacks.

The thing is, it is NOT immediately self evident that restricting those freedoms is objectively the best answer.

Personally, banning automatic weapons as my country has seems a very sane thing to do. Countering myself though, would the Catalonians in Spain be getting beaten up for holding a vote if the residents had automatic weapon in their basements or would the police show a little more respect to the citizen's than they did?

the organizers of this disgrace are racists so you don't get to say oh I was just there to protest the taking down of statues; they are losers and they need to go and no it's not a slippery slope

It's going to take media pundits a while to adjust to this new style. They'd not used to the playground style stuff, because they only ever interviewed slippery spinny politicians in the last 30 years of news. Now they need to get to grips once more with ridiculing what is an obviously childish point of view.

I could use the same argument to try to outlaw cars.
When someone complains about smokers outdoors, I ask them if they drove there to complain, then offer a deal. They sit in their car with the exhaust plumbed into the window, I'll sit in a box smoking a fat cigar, last one breathing wins the debate.
Oddly, no one ever takes me up on that, but at least they all sheepishly drop their complaints.

As to banning it in private homes, this is a terribly slippery slope that gives power to others to decide what's dangerous to you....now consider getting too little sleep has proven to be harmful, so why not a legally enforced bed time based on the youngest or oldest person on your block? Your second hand noise might keep them up, harming them, so night night time is now 6pm. Consider all the food issues you mentioned as second hand groceries, because children have little option but to eat what parents supply, so no more sugar, salt, or processed foods in the stores because they might buy them.

The questions about health and safety vs freedom to be unhealthy are not simple ones to resolve, and it's impossible to fully safeguard both.

It's not the bread. A lot of plastic bags are covered with tallow (animal fat) to make them slippery and keep them from sticking together (necessary so the machines can pull them apart when they pack the bread in the factory). Cats love the taste; that's why you'll often find them licking or chewing plastic bags (side note: don't let them chew: if they swallow a tiny piece, it can lodge in their intestines and block the smooth flow of food and waste, causing bloating and potentially a rupture). This cat obviously /really/ likes the taste.

It's true, those repairdudes are shitty, uncaring people and they could've at least improved their safety measures after the first accident. They probably didn't do it right in the first place.
But...
those people crashing, they're shitty drivers. That's a 40 miles per hour speed limit on the road, right? That's 64 kilometers per hour. Look where people slide off the road. Look how far away they are from that truck. That's at least 50 meters. It's enough space to reduce your car's speed on a slippery road to make it safe to break for a full stop. But these people are slipping off the road before they're even close enough throw one of those plastic cones at the Comcast douchebags if they had one.
Again, the repairdudes are assholes but they're not causing the accidents, it's shitty driving. The drivers are breaking too hard and too soon on a slippery road to avoid a truck that's too far away to crash into.
Just take your foot of the gas, use your breaks just to reduce speed. If you're not driving an automatic, shift down a gear to further reduce speed when you're slowed down a bit. Once you're slow enough, like maybe 30 kmph or less, you start breaking for a full stop.
Don't stomp on your break 100 meters away from the obstacle. If you start sliding, release the break to regain control of the car, to get out of the slide.
Also, why isn't the actual scene of the accident secured? Why doesn't the guy who slipped off the road secure his own damn car? I don't know about the US but over here I'm required by law to have a warning sign in my car that I have to place 100 m down the road. That would probably placed before the hilltop, where people are unable to see the repairtruck. They would be warned that something's wrong down the road.
The idiot filming puts out more cones (or whatever those things are supposed to be) but her places them by the truck instead of securing his own crashsite. Instead of warning people coming up the hill, he berates the repair-assholes and shoots video of more shitty drivers crashing, doing nothing to prevent a bigger crashsite. Unless he's the Dovahkiin, his yelling won't stop the cars from slipping off the road.
That video is a total douchebagapalooza and their bandleader is the one filming.

This! And in Dr. Greger's book he even says this

Something a long the lines of:
Eating a steak once a week has a negligible amount of risk associated with health, as does smoking once per week. But most people find it a slippery slope, so it's easier to avoid it completely.

Everything in Moderation.

Meat is fine health wise in moderation. A candy bar is fine health wise in moderation. A gin and tonic is fine health wise in moderation. Going out in the sun is fine health wise in moderation. What exactly is a moderate amount of these things is more the question i believe when it comes to ones health.

The problem i find is when I indulge in salt, sugar and fat, it becomes a slippery slope as i tend to crave them. When i went full on plant based diet i cut all those things out it was quite enjoyable without them. When i had those things reintroduced into my diet it all went out the window But that was just me. I'm no good at moderation.

*quality mack lines:

"Hello ... we're going to be together ... and talking ... about your body and a lot more."

"I just want to make you feel good ... with looong kisses and hugs."

"Get ready to feel ... kind of slippery inside."