Michael Brown

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Its called freedom, welcome to america dip shit.

Shine up your jackboots lately? That's America, dumbass.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Its called freedom, welcome to america dip shit.

That's not freedom; it's a policy that allows private citizens to use the law as a cudgel to force their beliefs on others.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's not freedom; it's a policy that allows private citizens to use the law as a cudgel to force their beliefs on others.

No, it is a law that prevents businesses from discriminating against others because of either of their beliefs...

Its just that the road goes both ways, you cant have one thing with out the other.

It is called mother fucking freedom.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, it is a law that prevents businesses from discriminating against others because of either of their beliefs...

Its just that the road goes both ways, you cant have one thing with out the other.

It is called mother fucking freedom.

Yet, such law forces individuals to conduct speech and personal support of something they might find abhorrent. This is compelled speech, and it is completely contrary to the very notion of free speech.

Whatever the intent behind these laws might be, they are inevitably used as a bludgeon to silence dissent delegitimize political opponents.

[myriverse]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yet, such law forces individuals to conduct speech and personal support of something they might find abhorrent. This is compelled speech, and it is completely contrary to the very notion of free speech.

Whatever the intent behind these laws might be, they are inevitably used as a bludgeon to silence dissent delegitimize political opponents.

Wrong.

You're very free to find something abhorrent.

You're not free to act on that, because they destroys freedom.

[myriverse]

they=that

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by myriverse [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wrong.

You're very free to find something abhorrent.

You're not free to act on that, because they destroys freedom.

But what is defined as "acting on that"?

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by myriverse [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're not free to act on that, because they destroys freedom.

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.

[iruinedyourday]

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.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday

Its not like these are new laws.

Many of these laws are quite new, and the discussion is partly about whether or not more should be created.

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Gays being able to exorcise their rights the say way their non gay friends do, is not all of the sudden exploiting the system.

No one is preventing anyone from doing anything. The groups in question are absolutely free to pursue their own desires just as the merchants should be free to pursue their own desires. I find it interesting that the Colorado bakery has since shut down as a result of the law suit. If the goal of the suit was to acquire cake and prevent harm, it failed since the supplier in question was shuttered. How has the closure done anything for the plaintiff's "harm"?

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday

Someone who thinks that they're loosing their freedom because they want to be a racist prick

The freedom of association is a deeply rooted part of American constitutional jurisprudence. Compelling speech is absolutely the loss of a right.

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday

to a customer because of the color of the customers skin or sexual orientation

Race is a constitutionally protected class. Sexual orientation is not a protected class and is, therefore, not subject to strict scrutiny. It instead receives rational basis review. The legal standards on discrimination between race and orientation are extremely high. The two cannot be used interchangeably when talking about American legal policy.