Can I legally open a supermarket with the "gimmick" of "blacks aren't allowed on the premises"? Probably not. As said, sometimes it IS okay to discriminate on the basis of things like age/race/sex. Sometimes it isn't. I suspect that it has to do with what kind of business it is. For example, in Florida it is legal to allow smoking in bars. It is NOT legal to allow smoking in restaurants. Given the fact that many bars offer food and many restaurants sell booze, what is the difference? Last I checked, it's a simple number. If your food sales make up more than 15% of your total revenue, you're a restaurant. So it's illegal for you to allow any customers to smoke indoors. If your food sales make up less than that percentage of total revenue, then you're a bar. And it's legal for you to allow customers to smoke indoors. So...ARE "restaurants" allowed to discriminate based on age? IS Hooters a restaurant? Are there any special legal exemptions which allow a restaurant to avoid having to adhere to anti-discrimination laws? If so, what SPECIFICALLY exempts Hooters from having to adhere to any laws regarding discrimination based on age? MrGeezer

Actually, from what I've learned, the case for Hooter's defense is that their justification for discrimination comes from the bona fide occupational qualification defense from Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which reads:

"t shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to ****fy, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to ****fy its membership or to ****fy or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individualin any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise…"

As such, the "normal operation" of Hooters restaurants would be to have such young and attractive women wait tables and what not. That is what its business plan and model dictates. Conversely, having a supermarket with no "blacks" allowed on the premises would be in no way necessary for normal operation, and it would probably break a whole new set of laws involving discriminatory customer service and arbitrary hiring practices. The type of business might have something to do with this (as business type dictates business model, which can involve differentiation, commoditized, or mixed product/service strategies), but I think it has more to do with what you are reasonably expected to provide and need to run your business.

Sounds Onion worthy, and they have done a great job of ridiculing PETA in the past.

the closest that comes to mind first would be Admiral Yamamoto, who was killed by US fighters who shot down his transport plane in a surprise attack. the US had cracked japanese message codes and knew where to find him.

do admirals not count? it's hard to find examples, because civilian leaders are usually kept as far away from the war as physically possible.

Mordred19

I always thought there were more examples of leaders being killed in the culmination of such wars that end up with regime change, either as their capital/inner sanctum falls or shortly thereafter. And in weak states caught up in civil wars, covert assassination campaigns by the enemy don't seem out of the question (although I cannot an example of a leader killed this way).

I'm not up to speed on anti-discrimination laws. I know that there are certain exemptions to discrimination based on things like race/age/sex/etc (after all, a black actor absolutely SHOULD be discriminated against if he's applying for a role as George Washington). I just don't know when those exemptions are allowed. That being said, Hooters seems like just a restaurant, and the Hooters girls seem to me to be just waitresses. Would Applebees or Red Lobster be able to get away with discriminating against qualified applicants because they are too old? If so, then the same should apply at Hooters. If not, then Hooters should modify their business model if they want to be exempt from standard anti-discrimination laws.MrGeezer

I've heard this bought up before with (strangely enough) a man wanting a job at Hooters. I believe the verdict in court was that as long as the job description and profile matches up to what the restaurant's brand and service is expected to deliver (in this case being served by scantily clad and attractive female waitresses), then they are allowed to take discretion for whom they hire. In this case, Red Lobster and Applebees would not be expected to do what Hooters does.

Joan of Arc, Vlad the Impaler, Hector of Troy, King Priam, Leonadis on the top of my head.

Vesica_Prime

I know there are plenty example of this during ancient, classical, and medieval times, but I am looking for a more modern context, say the last 200-300 years, when national identity actually became relevant. Besides, aren't a few of those people from mythology?

Can OT think of any examples of this happening, at least in the context of modern nations? When I say "the enemy", I do not mean by coup d'etats or political infighting (and unrelated assassinations), but rather the main belligerent(s) during war. I also do not mean captured, and then killed sometime later after the end of hostilities, although summary execution counts.

The only two examples that come to my mind are Mussolini and Gaddafi, and I've been asking myself this question for a long time without any obvious answers. Care to enlighten me?

I don't have one favorite film. But of all the great films I've seen, I do not personally own a copy of most of them. I've only seen a good portion of them once.

lol wrestling. Finally realize it's scripted?Colin1192

That's not all!

Where does the bear stand on current pressing issues?

worlock77

I think the bear speaks for itself.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

Have you watched any of your favorite shows from the 1990s recently? I have, and I know I won't again any time soon.

mitu123

Well, certainly some shows from any era are going to be of high quality and age well. But I found that many of the shows I used to like had not aged well, were never good to begin with (and thus my tastes were too immature for me to know), or had been remembered by me primarily in a nostalgic sense. I can also imagine that since I belonged to a markedly different demographic, I am now well beyond the target audience the shows were designed for. And thus, much of it just seems silly, cliched, or out of place.

It seems to be a function of changing aesthetics, maturity/age level, and expectations.