Categorize the comment on the basis of insult. If the comment is insulting output Yes, otherwise output No.

[Q]: Funny that the cake  case should be brought up by this writer.  Local and state  laws force religious dissenters who don't want their product  in a homosexual ceremony that their genuine religious beliefs find disgusting and abhorrent, and against their beliefs but the Obama EEOC just ruled that Muslim Somali drivers who took jobs as delivery drivers can refuse to carry liquor    based on the very religious beliefs the States, and local laws deny the religious dissenters. 

So one set of rules for Muslims and another for Christians here in freedom loving America founded by peoples seeking religious freedom?

No double standard here?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: Nothing more then the political correct sensitivity culture of cupcakes having a tantrum. I noticed at least one uneducated moron had to use the racist card to describe Faye Stewart.
[A]: Yes


[Q]: "SWAG" stands for Scientific Wild-Assed Guess.  It's what passes for science when the science doesn't truly exist.   

I chose a random date because no one can give an answer to my question whether I suggest a date of tomorrow, 5 years from now, 10 years from now or any other date.  The science to answer that question does not exist!

Nor does the science to answer my second question.  Why should the society write a multi-billion dollar  blank check for something which not only doesn't currently exist but for which a theory hasn't even been developed? 

As an agnostic, I resent your attempt to knock my argument down by labeling my response as 'sinful religious conservatism'.

I am a conservative; I will not pay for a pig in a poke when you can't even tell me the size of the poke or the gender of the pig or anything else about this alleged pig which no one has ever seen.  Try selling me a unicorn; you will get the same response.
[A]:
Yes