We don’t regenerate. Anything beyond a very small cut will scar, not return to it’s original state. Doctors are good at minimizing and hiding scars, they can’t avoid them.
While it is not apparent it will also happen inside. The tissue that got stabbed will never heal to it’s original state.
We’re not talking about skill, we’re talking about artistic expression. You said custom cakes were artistic and semi-custom cakes weren’t. Remember?
And a lot of people consider (and have proven) successfully baking a box of Betty Crocker to be a skilled task as well.
For that matter, a professional baker doesnt really have “stock” cakes, they’re all custom. What you’re calling “stock” is merely a custom expression of their baking skills without any personalization. No different than any artist who produces artwork without any specific customer in mind to sale it to.
What about the demographic of covid survivors? Higher risk for side effects from the vaccine for sure, and much much lower risk of a bad reinfection case.
Also, see this link for risks to teens from the vaccine vs covid.
The article referenced is paywalled, but the comments are not and that lead to the actual research:
Note that it’s a preprint. Preprints should be taken with a grain of salt.
Note that it’s looking at VAERS data–which is simply looking at correlation, not causation.
It’s comparing heart inflammation rates in those teens vs the 4-month Covid hospitalization rate for the same group. Big problems:
3a) It doesn’t say those heart inflammation cases lead to hospitalization.
3b) It’s not saying how it gets that 120-day hospitalization rate. I’m not finding daily infection rates with demographics, lets pretend the odds are the same across all ages (which is invalid–the age group in question has a lower vaccination rate and thus a higher infection rate) and we get about a 25% chance of being infected. Oops–their heart inflammation group is 4x as big as the pool from which the hospital patients come. The difference they noted was less than 4x. For figuring the risk the 120-day incidence doesn’t matter–without vaccination they’ll almost certainly eventually get it. Thus in the long run the risk of hospitalization from Covid is higher than the risk of heart inflammation from the vaccine.
Their own data, bad as it is, says to get the vaccine.
(And what’s wrong with the quotes on this system??)
Same idea–I’m saying things which require continual skilled judgment count, things which are just doing the same thing over and over don’t. Since you compared it to taking pictures with an iPhone you might not recognize the skill, but it most definitely is there. I know I don’t have it even though I have the technical knowledge.
Really? Ignoring the moral objection, I’ll let it hang on the religious aspect. Let’s stick with the baker, since I don’t know your profession. Should a baker be forced to bake a cake with a man fondling a young boy? How about having sex with him (or as Billy-Bob Clinton would say, “sexual relations”)? Let me not restrict you to homosexual relations - what about a young girl (no intention of bringing up images of a young intern)?
I’m sometimes/frequently confused 
Are you saying that:
artistic expression = things which require continual skilled judgment
If so, please provide examples of the latter. To make it somewhat easier, would the following fit:
I’m not trying to be a pain/stickler/hall-monitor. I’m trying to determine what equates, in your world, to artistic expression.
You’re being inconsistent. You’re the one that brought up “semi-custom” when it came to the baker. I specifically described how that same label could be applied to a lot of photography. Just showing up and documenting the exact same thing you’ve documented a thousand times before is a lot less “custom” than choosing a location, directing people where to stand, and how to pose, no? I brought up the fact that guests take photos to bolster the point. You say creating a “custom” wedding cake is not art. How many people at the wedding are making a cake while it’s going on? None, they would need a kitchen, tools, ingredients, etc. like the baker uses to create his “art.” But you say taking pictures is art, even though there are dozens of guests doing that same thing with the device they carry around in their pocket. Yet the photographer is somehow an artist but the baker is not? I don’t see the logic in that.
Regardless, you are deflecting. I said already, I don’t think this should hinge first on the right not to be forced to create art that one disagrees with. I said it should first depend on one’s religious conscience rights. So let’s establish a baseline:
Should a businessman with a sincerely held religious belief have to leave those beliefs at home the moment he opens his doors to the public? Generally speaking, the Supreme Court has said, “No.” to that. Do you agree that business owners still have general religious freedom rights?
Next, when the state has a compelling interest (in this case, stopping discrimination against gays), do you agree that now we potentially have two rights (right to practice your religion and right not to be discriminated against) in conflict?
So, with those two rights in conflict, does the level of involvement in the event at odds (the gay marriage) matter? Some would say the baker isn’t actually taking part in the ceremony, he just made a cake and if no one told him it was going to a gay wedding, he would never actually know. But a photographer, on the other hand, would most definitely know because they are attending the ceremony and their performance depends on them looking intently and capturing the moment of the ceremony that would presumably most shock their conscience. Does that matter?
The reason I keep coming back to the religious aspect and not the art aspect is because of my follow up question that you didn’t answer. What about professions that everyone agrees aren’t art. What about the minister? What about the property owner?
Totally different scenario. Puppy-smashing is something he did, not something he is. I have no problem with rejecting a customer for something they did. I do have a problem with rejecting a customer for something they are, although I am willing to grant an exemption for tasks that are actually creative in nature as that is putting the person in a position where their judgment might be clouded by their opinion of the situation.
Note that something like gay marriage or the like is something they are, not something they did. You can’t change your sexuality–the act in question is simply marriage.
And how is this any different from rejecting a customer for getting married? You cant claim that an action represents what you are in some cases, while dismissing actions as just an action in other cases.
If someone enjoys smashing puppies, that is as representative of who they are as a gay person getting married. There isnt any inherent difference between the two besides your own opinion, you are just drawing an arbitrary line between what you consider acceptable and what you find unacceptable.
The entire defense of gay rights walks a very fine line already. Most of the arguments used to compel us to accept and be tolerant of gays also say we should accept and be tolerant of pedophiles.
Or worse yet, Republican voters! It may not be their choice either.
Considering the flaws of the methodology of twin studies, especially when it comes to beliefs or attitudes vs. pathologies or anatomy, and the remaining variance within that methodology, the title is quite a bit misleading to say the least.
Rules for thee, but not for me. Why Your Betters don’t have to behave on Facebook.
In private, the company has built a system that has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules, according to company documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
The program, known as “cross check” or “XCheck,” was initially intended as a quality-control measure for actions taken against high-profile accounts, including celebrities, politicians and journalists. Today, it shields millions of VIP users from the company’s normal enforcement process, the documents show. Some users are “whitelisted”—rendered immune from enforcement actions—while others are allowed to post rule-violating material pending Facebook employee reviews that often never come.
While the program included most government officials, it didn’t include all candidates for public office, at times effectively granting incumbents in elections an advantage over challengers. The discrepancy was most prevalent in state and local races, the documents show, and employees worried Facebook could be subject to accusations of favoritism.
Thanks for the article, and your excerpts as my ip apparently has bad juju with uncle Rupert. 
How Facebook’s post-Trump algorithm changes encouraged news, politicians, and other online attention seekers to use outrage and contentious topics that were rewarded and amplified by the FB changes. The consequences for online dialogue was predictably bad, but yeah, more people argued online on their platform so their advertising stats went up.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-algorithm-change-zuckerberg-11631654215?ns=prod/accounts-wsj
Backup link
They concluded that the new algorithm’s heavy weighting of reshared material in its News Feed made the angry voices louder. “Misinformation, toxicity, and violent content are inordinately prevalent among reshares, researchers noted in internal memos.
While the FB platform offers people the opportunity to connect, share and engage, an unfortunate side effect is that harmful and misinformative content can go viral, often before we can catch it and mitigate its effects,” he wrote. “Political operatives and publishers tell us that they rely more on negativity and sensationalism for distribution due to recent algorithmic changes that favor reshares.”
“Many [political] parties, including those that have shifted to the negative, worry about the long term effects on democracy,” read one internal Facebook report, which didn’t name specific parties.
Data scientists on that integrity team—whose job is to improve the quality and trustworthiness of content on the platform—worked on a number of potential changes to curb the tendency of the overhauled algorithm to reward outrage and lies. Mr. Zuckerberg resisted some of the proposed fixes, the documents show, because he was worried they might hurt the company’s other objective—making users engage more with Facebook.
Outsourcing social surveillance to private enterprise
Once a Republican gets into the White House, they will outsource uncle Joe’s financial snooping to this company … and then be pilloried by the “impartial press”. 
Only 3+ years… (a Republican) please grant us.
Watching Blundering Biden this morning telling lie after lie, “only the rich” Must Pay their share. While last night it’s said Biden owes $700k pass years taxes.
‘2022 a near, new slate in Congress, maybe even a couple more R in the Senate. 
Microsoft-owned Linkedin, which is probably the most used résumé publishing website, apparently doesn’t mind censoring their users.