Quote:
Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Define "destroys freedom".
Compelling a person to silence or speech is violation of the first amendment. The Supreme Court clearly established this in Wooley v. Maynard and expanded it in Hurley (stating that protection against compelled speech "applies not only to expressions of value, opinion, or endorsement, but equally to statements of fact the speaker would rather avoid").
The actual law aside, this discussion is also about what makes good policy. It is bad policy to have a law where people can forum shop until they find someone they disagree with and sue them over that mere difference of opinion all because they want to silence dissent. The abusiveness of such a system is blindingly obvious. Good policy is about preventing harm. A merchant refusing service does no harm. It is exactly as if the customer had never found that vendor in the first place. Yet, with these laws in place the merchant is forced to engage in activity and speech that he finds objectionable. These policies create harm and remove rights.
Compelled speech is unjust and contrary to the deepest constitutional, moral, and ethical principles of America.
|
Its not like these are new laws. And we have a very successful track record with lawsuits in the united states over basic freedoms. Its proven to both be an efficient and a fair system.
Gays being able to exorcise their rights the say way their non gay friends do, is not all of the sudden exploiting the system.
Someone who thinks that they're loosing their freedom because they want to be a racist prick to a customer because of the color of the customers skin or sexual orientation, I am happy are shut down in a court and forced to, make a cake.