Michael Brown

[Daywolf]

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

wut

Wut what? You actually need to read those links and think about it. Put yourself into the situation, lets say the KKK were havin a wedding party. You are a wedding photographer and they want to hire you. But you understand that at this KKK wedding, everyone is going to wear the hoods, they will be burning a cross, doing speeches, doing whatever KKK does. You refuse on religious or moral grounds whatever, they raise a lawsuit against you, they get a judge to rule in their favor which too works for the KKK. Worse thing is, the KKK could have just went and hired someone else, but maybe in fact picked you because they knew you would object so they could sue you, or at least get someone like you to be required to be at one of their rallies... er I mean weddings working for them. But to sue you penniless nonetheless.

See it's not good enough that they are able to have weddings, but they (militant homosexuals) need to force you into it as well, to participate in it even if it goes against your race, color or religion. It's basically turning the discrimination laws against you, what protects you doesn't protect you any longer, only them by rule of insane judge.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

What are you on and can I have some?

[iruinedyourday]

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

Wut what? You actually need to read those links and think about it. Put yourself into the situation, lets say the KKK were havin a wedding party. You are a wedding photographer and they want to hire you. But you understand that at this KKK wedding, everyone is going to wear the hoods, they will be burning a cross, doing speeches, doing whatever KKK does. You refuse on religious or moral grounds whatever, they raise a lawsuit against you, they get a judge to rule in their favor which too works for the KKK. Worse thing is, the KKK could have just went and hired someone else, but maybe in fact picked you because they knew you would object so they could sue you, or at least get someone like you to be required to be at one of their rallies... er I mean weddings working for them. But to sue you penniless nonetheless.

See it's not good enough that they are able to have weddings, but they (militant homosexuals) need to force you into it as well, to participate in it even if it goes against your race, color or religion. It's basically turning the discrimination laws against you, what protects you doesn't protect you any longer, only them by rule of insane judge.

Its called freedom, welcome to america dip shit.

http://tribuneherald.net/2013/08/23/...iscrimination/

[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.

[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.