The fundamental problem is belief. Believe is a word that I use rarely and with great care. To "Believe" is to accept on faith and without evidence. Faith us usually based on the dictates of authority. To the extent that atheism is a belief system it is as illogical as theism. I have used this example before. I was once asked if I believe that two plus two makes four. my answer was "No". But because I understand the rules of arthritic I understand WHY two plus two makes four and also under what circumstances it doesn't. Be very skeptical when you hear anyone use the word "believe".

No.

No

Why when people start talking about 2 humans of the same sex getting married, someone always brings up marrying or fornicating with animals? And what does this have to do with objectivism, anyway?

Perhaps because people feel the need to use the banner of Objectivism to push their personal beliefs or causes? I see the same thing by atheists, by hyper-conservatives, and others who bend words to fit their views, and then condemn anyone who doesn't believe just like they do.

A-theism is lack of belief in a conscious creator of existence. Agnosticism is refusing to decide for oneself whether the alleged "evidence" of a creator makes rational sense, thus putting on equal footing a rational conclusion based on lack of evidence (atheism), and the unverified and unverifiable assertions of others (theism).

A person would be a bit nuts to actually marry a cat. But if someone wanted that, it's none of my business. As to the age of majority, given the divorce rates among older people I wonder if legal marriage is really a matter of age. Get rid of taxation and most of the resson for legal marriage when there are no children goes away.

Sex? On the Internet? I wonder why no one has thought of it before! :-)

Re: "What I worry about is the idea that one of the most successful entrepreneurial ventures in history (Amazon) would fall prey to the false political correctness." If there were a significant number of Amazon reviewers taking religious offense at the sexy nun costumes, I'd agree with you. But there are very few negative reviews of this type. The volume of complaints may have more to do with Amazon's decision than being politically correct.

Looks to me like the volume of negative feedback had something to do with the sexy burka ban. I found very few Amazon reviewers claiming to be religiously offended by the sexy nun costumes.

It is but one real function of Government. The Constitution even actually states that weights and measures are to be regulated by Government. When a Business sells a product as say a safe sleep aid, it can not be selling you poison. While true you wouldn't wake up in the middle of the night, killing you is not a "safe" sleep aid. Actually Rand even admitted that Government's job was as a police man in the enforcement of contracts. That is for the good of the society. Note, I have stated "for society" not "Social Justice". These are two very different creatures. It is for the good of society that one gets a driver's license, has speed limits, and follows contracts one has entered in. If society is not a governed then you have anarchy. Objectivism is not Anarchy. It is Capitalism ran with reasonable thought.

Re: " State is the policy arm of religion." Unless you consider atheism to be a religion, I don't see how this applies to any of the communist regimes throughout history. States can be the political expression of various belief systems, but not all belief systems are based on religion.

What about non-profit corporations set up to advance a political or economic point of view, such as conservative, libertarian or progressive "think tanks"? These are corporate entities that "meddle in the matters of a private citizenry."

Does the cat have appropriate consciousness and it is aware of the obligations and privileges afforded to participants in a marriage contract? Other than that, i don't have a problem with it. We do have limits in our culture as to "age of majority" for when a human person is old enough -- presumably mature enough -- to participate in a contractual relationship. Different states, however, seem to have different ages for such when it comes to the marriage arrangement.

If a person wants to marry his cat, let him

Not really. This is amazon's choice if they want to be politically "correct"

I was mainly pointing out the fact of how a corporate entity is able to meddle in the matters of a private citizenry. Marketplace competition, yes...these kinds of politics...no.

Just type in 'sex' and you might get what you are looking for unless you need some real perverse stuff for your recreation.

So explain to me why the government (any government) has any role in marriage (straight, gay, cross species??? -- of course, it seems unlikely a horse, mule, gerbil can give informed consent to participate in any contract). Marriage is a function of religion. If you have a marriage contract within a belief structure (a religion) the only role I can see for a government is to have a file cabinet into which, for a fee, marriage participants can keep their contract -- so later if/when one or the other wishes to abrogate the agreement, they can review the escape clause(s). It would be an unnecessary function as there are plenty of ways to conserve a contract, but may increase enforcibility should one party or the other impose on the Courts to enforce the parameters they agreed to .
Here is a good place to remind everyone there is no such thing as "separation of church and state." State is the policy arm of religion. It is subservient to the basic tenants of some religion (the Napoleonic Code is different from the Constitution of the U.S. which is different than the laws upheld in Iran, Iraq, Russia, China or Saudi Arabia).
Returning to the original question, Amazon has no obligation to carry out any particular business decision, It has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize returns for share holders. If individuals are offended by any practice they have the right to take their business elsewhere. Just a a caterer, a photographer or any other business has the right to decline to do business with any individual for any reason (though doing so may be bad for business).
Personally, I think the bukini is a great looking outfit and the pictured Halloween costume looked great and fit well within the idiocy of costume wearing (I have thought the same thing with other "mocking" costumes such as nun costumes and Jedi suits, Hindu garb etc).

"Atheism is just Godism turned upside down." Heinlein. Both sides claim knowledge that impossible to verify. While some old guy in a nightshirt living in some inaccessible place like a volcano or the bottom of the sea or in the sky is highly unlikely the idea of a unifying force to the cosmos is difficult to avoid. Maybe we just need to expand our definitions a bit. The problem is that belief is so much easier than understanding that religions prosper while objective thinking languishes. Don't confuse atheism with agnosticism. Insufficient data!

why would an Objectivist care about whether a marriage was same or mixed sex?
Why would I care about some declarations regarding "beliefs" (mine or others)?

perhaps there are other details in the marriage initiative that restrict freedom, rather than allow more freedom?

AHH...to Vend or not to Vend...That is the question.

I'll say one thing about the sexy girl barker outfit...I'd be less likely to be suspicious seeing that outfit, opposed to the male one...so long as it is occupied by a real woman.

Sorry, but you are wrong on many levels.
Objectivism has Everything to do with your personal beliefs. A philosophy that you believe in, especially a rational one, is a basis for one's life actions and responses. If it isn't then it is less useful. As to atheism, one cannot truly call oneself an Objectivist and not be an atheist, as atheism is an intrinsic part of the philosophy. It is true, however, that one can adopt any part of the Objectivist philosophy and and make it part of one's rules to live by, but strictly speaking, one could not be called an Objectivist.

Trollers. One if my replies got thumbed down as well. There are non-Objectivists around that don't like what Objectivists have to say and they seem to enjoy down voting others.