Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 19:23:01 GMT -5
Well many people on this board have tagged me as a liberal (which is funny, because I hate both political parties and while I vote in every election, I have never registered with any political party).
I believe deeply in free speech, but I also believe in personal responsibility: one may be free to speak or act, but one is not free from any negative consequences of one's speech or actions. The students may have said what they felt/believed and they had the right to say it out loud, but they don't have the right to be shielded from dismissal for creating a hostile learning environment.
Same with the baker. They have an absolute right to their religious beliefs - FOR THEM. They also have the right to impose their religious beliefs on their cohorts who believe like they do. They do NOT have the right to impose their religious beliefs in a civil, non-sectarian arena on others who are not like them or do not think like them by denying services that are held out to the general public under civil law and licensing.
Your rights end where my nose begins. To me, that is not liberal OR conservative. I do not understand your view at all. It sounds inconsistent to me. I believe in freedom of speech. To me that means the government or one of its agencies will not punish me for what I say. If I were to say, "vote Libertarian" and the government expelled me from school, then I would be facing a negative consequence for my speech, something you are in favor of, under certain circumstances, if I understand you correctly. That is what all prohibited speech is, unfavorable consequences. It seems to me that your view is that the school can punish people for speech it doesn't agree with. I do not see how that is in any way "in favor of free speech". Likewise on the cake baker. He had religious reasons not to make a cake and was forced to either make it or shut up business. There was no allowance for him to practice his religion as he saw it. Think of a scale and on one side his religion and on the other the right of a gay couple to buy a cake. His side was overpowered by a cake sale, not very much religious freedom there, in my opiinion.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 16, 2015 19:29:52 GMT -5
so were there any liberals posting here who supported the students right to free speech without official repercussons from the school? It seems to me that on this issue and the cake baker issue, it is the conservatives and libertarians who most strongly support freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Is that a fair assessment? This liberal is enjoying the discussion in regards to the students. I have not reached a final conclusion. I don't see any connection between this situation and the bakery issue. I have made clear (I hope) that I do not feel that a corporation has constitutional rights. The bakery was a corporation subject to the laws of the society that created it.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Mar 16, 2015 19:31:02 GMT -5
Free Speech is not *entirely* free. There are legal exceptions. From Wikipedia:
"Exceptions to free speech in the United States are limitations on the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and expression as recognized by the United States Supreme Court. These exceptions have been created over time, based on certain types of speech and expression, and under different contexts. While freedom of speech in the United States is a constitutional right, these exceptions make that right a limited one.
Restrictions that are based on people's reactions to words include both instances of a complete exception, and cases of diminished protection. Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections. Commercial advertising receives diminished, but not eliminated, protection.
Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded for uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the following: the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration."
So when you (the Big You, not anyone here in particular) talk about "free speech," make sure you are not making assumptions based on semantics or on your own personal definition which may not be entirely accurate. Just sayin' . . . .
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 19:33:11 GMT -5
so were there any liberals posting here who supported the students right to free speech without official repercussons from the school? It seems to me that on this issue and the cake baker issue, it is the conservatives and libertarians who most strongly support freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Is that a fair assessment? This liberal is enjoying the discussion in regards to the students. I have not reached a final conclusion. I don't see any connection between this situation and the bakery issue. I have made clear (I hope) that I do not feel that a corporation has constitutional rights. The bakery was a corporation subject to the laws of the society that created it. Do you think I have a right to start up a business and run it based on Biblical principles?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 19:34:46 GMT -5
@hickle all of our freedoms have limits. Freedom to practice your religion does not extend to human sacrifice or the practice of pedophilia. I know they are extreme examples, I only use it to show that "freedoms" are not absolute. I am comfortable including not being allowed to discriminate based on homosexual orientation (I figured I better specify the exact orientation or have NAMBLA brought up again ) The students were doing more than expressing themselves, they were threatening. I don't like the N word but I wouldn't agree with them being expelled over it. I think they should be expelled for threatening to hang them from a tree.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 19:41:02 GMT -5
Free Speech is not *entirely* free. There are legal exceptions. From Wikipedia:
"Exceptions to free speech in the United States are limitations on the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and expression as recognized by the United States Supreme Court. These exceptions have been created over time, based on certain types of speech and expression, and under different contexts. While freedom of speech in the United States is a constitutional right, these exceptions make that right a limited one.
Restrictions that are based on people's reactions to words include both instances of a complete exception, and cases of diminished protection. Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections. Commercial advertising receives diminished, but not eliminated, protection.
Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded for uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the following: the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration."
So when you (the Big You, not anyone here in particular) talk about "free speech," make sure you are not making assumptions based on semantics or your own personal definition which may not be entirely accurate. Just sayin' . . . .
Freedom of speech means that I can say something hateful to you and the government cannot punish me for it. I don't mean threats or shouting "fire" or fraud. Some drunken students singing bigotry as wrong as that is should be free. That is my view of freedom of speech. I think it was the classical liberal view of freedom of speech also. I do not think any of the liberals, in the modern sense of the word, here believe that. It is interesting to me that they are the ones who want to limit speech. I am stating the way I see things, so if I am misstating your on anyone else's view, please forgive.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 19:44:40 GMT -5
@hickle all of our freedoms have limits. Freedom to practice your religion does not extend to human sacrifice or the practice of pedophilia. I know they are extreme examples, I only use it to show that "freedoms" are not absolute. I am comfortable including not being allowed to discriminate based on homosexual orientation (I figured I better specify the exact orientation or have NAMBLA brought up again ) The students were doing more than expressing themselves, they were threatening. I don't like the N word but I wouldn't agree with them being expelled over it. I think they should be expelled for threatening to hang them from a tree. There are negative rights and positive rights. A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction. Pedophilia and human sacrifice involve another person doing something. i.e. being molested or killed. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both negative rights. The students were being asses, not threats. Again in my opinion. eta: I googled "negative right" and copied the definition.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 16, 2015 19:47:11 GMT -5
This liberal is enjoying the discussion in regards to the students. I have not reached a final conclusion. I don't see any connection between this situation and the bakery issue. I have made clear (I hope) that I do not feel that a corporation has constitutional rights. The bakery was a corporation subject to the laws of the society that created it. Do you think I have a right to start up a business and run it based on Biblical principles? Yes, as a sole proprietorship.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Mar 16, 2015 19:47:14 GMT -5
Free Speech is not *entirely* free. There are legal exceptions. From Wikipedia:
"Exceptions to free speech in the United States are limitations on the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and expression as recognized by the United States Supreme Court. These exceptions have been created over time, based on certain types of speech and expression, and under different contexts. While freedom of speech in the United States is a constitutional right, these exceptions make that right a limited one.
Restrictions that are based on people's reactions to words include both instances of a complete exception, and cases of diminished protection. Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections. Commercial advertising receives diminished, but not eliminated, protection.
Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded for uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the following: the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration."
So when you (the Big You, not anyone here in particular) talk about "free speech," make sure you are not making assumptions based on semantics or your own personal definition which may not be entirely accurate. Just sayin' . . . .
Freedom of speech means that I can say something hateful to you and the government cannot punish me for it. I don't mean threats or shouting "fire" or fraud. Some drunken students singing bigotry as wrong as that is should be free. That is my view of freedom of speech. I think it was the classical liberal view of freedom of speech also. I do not think any of the liberals, in the modern sense of the word, here believe that. It is interesting to me that they are the ones who want to limit speech. I am stating the way I see things, so if I am misstating your on anyone else's view, please forgive. Clearly this is your personal opinion, but be cognizant of the fact that is does not jive with case law in this country (the reasons, some litigated over time, why some forms of speech are not acceptable and thus not allowed). Threats are one of those reasons (see text above). I do not want to "limit free speech." But I do respect the law.
But as always, YMMV.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 16, 2015 19:48:46 GMT -5
Not that hickle will reply, but I wonder how he feels about the restriction of speech on these boards.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Mar 16, 2015 19:49:13 GMT -5
so were there any liberals posting here who supported the students right to free speech without official repercussons from the school? It seems to me that on this issue and the cake baker issue, it is the conservatives and libertarians who most strongly support freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Is that a fair assessment? No.
I think some conservatives don't understand the difference between free speech and consequences of speech in general. And I don't believe most conservatives support freedom to practice religion either. What they seem to support is practice of Christianity that excludes gays and has their preferred moral code.
If they really supported freedom of religion they'd be all for Happy Holidays and Islamic holidays on the school calendar. But we both know that does not happen for most of them.
I think the issue is many folks do not understand what freedom of religion means. It means the freedom to practice. It does not guarantee a secular life or existence that will be acceptable no matter what your religion. It means you are free to practice your religion at home or in a church or mosque without worry of persecution or jail time. It does not mean you can choose which laws to follow or not based on your religion.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Mar 16, 2015 20:02:01 GMT -5
@hickle all of our freedoms have limits. Freedom to practice your religion does not extend to human sacrifice or the practice of pedophilia. I know they are extreme examples, I only use it to show that "freedoms" are not absolute. I am comfortable including not being allowed to discriminate based on homosexual orientation (I figured I better specify the exact orientation or have NAMBLA brought up again ) The students were doing more than expressing themselves, they were threatening. I don't like the N word but I wouldn't agree with them being expelled over it. I think they should be expelled for threatening to hang them from a tree. There are negative rights and positive rights. A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction. Pedophilia and human sacrifice involve another person doing something. i.e. being molested or killed. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both negative rights. The students were being asses, not threats. Again in my opinion. eta: I googled "negative right" and copied the definition. It goes farther than that. Even if a person is OK with being a sacrifice, the laws of most countries see it as an illegal act.
Yes the students were being asses versus being threats, but that actually IMO has nothing to do with whether the university has the right to expel them or their frat to keep them or not. IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT ACTING ON A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. (In caps so it is obvious.)
If they sang 'I love killing babies. Three weeks, six weeks, full term or even just born. I love killing me some babies.' would that change your mind in any fashion? It is opinion if what they said is worth expelling them over. I personally do not think it should be opinion over whether a university 83% not supported by the state (or even 51% not supported by the state) has the right to expel students over behavior they feel is harmful to the university and or its image. Do you or any conservatives want to advance the opinion that a student can say anything, do anything and the university has to suck it up and keep them in the event they receive any tax money? (If so, please explain why businesses profiting by the existence of government and business laws should be free to do whatever they want, laws and society be damned.)
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 16, 2015 20:03:50 GMT -5
Once you open to 'the public' there are rules. Sexual orientation is not a protected class in many places so if someone really has a problem they should find a nice southern state to open their hatecorp.
I think I mentioned it- but what about a private religious college- could they kick out a student for attending a pro-abortion rally in frat gear/college gear or for other offensive conduct to the school? What kind of mileage does the 1st amendment get in those places?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 20:05:33 GMT -5
@hickle all of our freedoms have limits. Freedom to practice your religion does not extend to human sacrifice or the practice of pedophilia. I know they are extreme examples, I only use it to show that "freedoms" are not absolute. I am comfortable including not being allowed to discriminate based on homosexual orientation (I figured I better specify the exact orientation or have NAMBLA brought up again ) The students were doing more than expressing themselves, they were threatening. I don't like the N word but I wouldn't agree with them being expelled over it. I think they should be expelled for threatening to hang them from a tree. There are negative rights and positive rights. A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction. Pedophilia and human sacrifice involve another person doing something. i.e. being molested or killed. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both negative rights. The students were being asses, not threats. Again in my opinion. eta: I googled "negative right" and copied the definition. We seem to agree on the principles but disagree about whether they have been broken. IMO refusing to sell someone a cake based on being homosexual is an overt action and singing about hanging folks from trees is a threat.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 20:12:23 GMT -5
There are negative rights and positive rights. A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction. Pedophilia and human sacrifice involve another person doing something. i.e. being molested or killed. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both negative rights. The students were being asses, not threats. Again in my opinion. eta: I googled "negative right" and copied the definition. We seem to agree on the principles but disagree about whether they have been broken. IMO refusing to sell someone a cake based on being homosexual is an overt action and singing about hanging folks from trees is a threat. If I refuse to sell you a cake, what action am I making you take? If the government forces me to either make you a cake or shut down my business what action is the government making me take? The right to practice my religion by not endorsing gay marriage is a negative right. The right to force me to make you a cake is a positive right. Where do we agree on the principles? To my thinking and beliefs you have no right to make me bake you a cake. I have every right to be left alone by you and not bake you a cake if I don't want to. ETA: I am all for gays having the same joy and happiness and everyone else. I am for gays being able to marry and think they should have all the same legal rights as heterosexual people. I just don't think they have rights above and beyond the basic human rights everyone has, such as the right to practice religion as one sees fit. Also I am a bit anti-christian in my beliefs and think christianity has a thousand fold over hurt more people then being gay has. Inelegant way to say that, but hope you get the meaning.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Mar 16, 2015 20:13:55 GMT -5
Free Speech is not *entirely* free. There are legal exceptions. From Wikipedia:
"Exceptions to free speech in the United States are limitations on the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and expression as recognized by the United States Supreme Court. These exceptions have been created over time, based on certain types of speech and expression, and under different contexts. While freedom of speech in the United States is a constitutional right, these exceptions make that right a limited one.
Restrictions that are based on people's reactions to words include both instances of a complete exception, and cases of diminished protection. Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections. Commercial advertising receives diminished, but not eliminated, protection.
Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded for uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the following: the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration."
So when you (the Big You, not anyone here in particular) talk about "free speech," make sure you are not making assumptions based on semantics or your own personal definition which may not be entirely accurate. Just sayin' . . . .
Freedom of speech means that I can say something hateful to you and the government cannot punish me for it. I don't mean threats or shouting "fire" or fraud. Some drunken students singing bigotry as wrong as that is should be free. That is my view of freedom of speech. I think it was the classical liberal view of freedom of speech also. I do not think any of the liberals, in the modern sense of the word, here believe that. It is interesting to me that they are the ones who want to limit speech. I am stating the way I see things, so if I am misstating your on anyone else's view, please forgive. And again the government is doing diddly squat in this frat song issue. The government is not punishing, is not rewarding, because it simply is not involved.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Mar 16, 2015 20:15:45 GMT -5
We seem to agree on the principles but disagree about whether they have been broken. IMO refusing to sell someone a cake based on being homosexual is an overt action and singing about hanging folks from trees is a threat. If I refuse to sell you a cake, what action am I making you take? If the government forces me to either make you a cake or shut down my business what action is the government making me take? The right to practice my religion by not endorsing gay marriage is a negative right. The right to force me to make you a cake is a positive right. Where do we agree on the principles? To my thinking and beliefs you have no right to make me bake you a cake. I have every right to be left alone by you and not bake you a cake if I don't want to. You live in the US. Ignorance of the laws is considered no excuse. Don't open a bakery, problem solved.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 20:17:55 GMT -5
Freedom of speech means that I can say something hateful to you and the government cannot punish me for it. I don't mean threats or shouting "fire" or fraud. Some drunken students singing bigotry as wrong as that is should be free. That is my view of freedom of speech. I think it was the classical liberal view of freedom of speech also. I do not think any of the liberals, in the modern sense of the word, here believe that. It is interesting to me that they are the ones who want to limit speech. I am stating the way I see things, so if I am misstating your on anyone else's view, please forgive. And again the government is doing diddly squat in this frat song issue. The government is not punishing, is not rewarding, because it simply is not involved.
The government is involved. It is the University of Oklahoma. They get tax support. The president and board of regents are political appointees. Do you think they could become a baptist college if they so chose?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 16, 2015 20:17:56 GMT -5
I'm often accused of being sheltered, but you get the golden trophy if you've honestly never heard a song whose lyrics are as bad or worse than hanging folks from trees.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 20:18:46 GMT -5
We seem to agree on the principles but disagree about whether they have been broken. IMO refusing to sell someone a cake based on being homosexual is an overt action and singing about hanging folks from trees is a threat. If I refuse to sell you a cake, what action am I making you take? If the government forces me to either make you a cake or shut down my business what action is the government making me take? The right to practice my religion by not endorsing gay marriage is a negative right. The right to force me to make you a cake is a positive right. Where do we agree on the principles? To my thinking and beliefs you have no right to make me bake you a cake. I have every right to be left alone by you and not bake you a cake if I don't want to. ETA: I am all for gays having the same joy and happiness and everyone else. I am for gays being able to marry and think they should have all the same legal rights as heterosexual people. I just don't think they have rights above and beyond the basic human rights everyone has, such as the right to practice religion as one sees fit. Also I am a bit anti-christian in my beliefs and think christianity has a thousand fold over hurt more people then being gay has. Inelegant way to say that, but hope you get the meaning. You have opened a business and refuse to serve me for an activity which is perfectly legal in each of our countries. You bake cakes. You chose to bake cakes. I am not forcing you to bake cakes, you decided to make your living at it. All you are refusing to do is serve me. As I said, it is the equivalent of not letting black people sit at the counter.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 20:21:01 GMT -5
If I refuse to sell you a cake, what action am I making you take? If the government forces me to either make you a cake or shut down my business what action is the government making me take? The right to practice my religion by not endorsing gay marriage is a negative right. The right to force me to make you a cake is a positive right. Where do we agree on the principles? To my thinking and beliefs you have no right to make me bake you a cake. I have every right to be left alone by you and not bake you a cake if I don't want to. You live in the US. Ignorance of the laws is considered no excuse. Don't open a bakery, problem solved.
Have state close their colleges and universities and that wold also solve the problem. I am stating my understanding of what 'freedom of religion' and 'freedom of speech" mean. If I am ignorant of what they mean, point me to something other then your or other posters opinions. The wikipedia snippet did not contradict my view.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 20:22:11 GMT -5
I'm often accused of being sheltered, but you get the golden trophy if you've honestly never heard a song whose lyrics are as bad or worse than hanging folks from trees. Actually I don't hear many songs with lyrics worse than that. I don't listen to those stations on the radio. And since no one lines up in the parking lot at work singing songs about doing violence to women or minorities or whoever, I can avoid hearing them. Unlike the students at the university.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 16, 2015 20:22:19 GMT -5
What if the cake is on the shelf with a price tag on it?
Today it is a cake, tomorrow it is gas and groceries. "Sir, I noticed another male in your backyard- so before I do your landscaping I need to know the nature of your relationship"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 20:23:37 GMT -5
If I refuse to sell you a cake, what action am I making you take? If the government forces me to either make you a cake or shut down my business what action is the government making me take? The right to practice my religion by not endorsing gay marriage is a negative right. The right to force me to make you a cake is a positive right. Where do we agree on the principles? To my thinking and beliefs you have no right to make me bake you a cake. I have every right to be left alone by you and not bake you a cake if I don't want to. ETA: I am all for gays having the same joy and happiness and everyone else. I am for gays being able to marry and think they should have all the same legal rights as heterosexual people. I just don't think they have rights above and beyond the basic human rights everyone has, such as the right to practice religion as one sees fit. Also I am a bit anti-christian in my beliefs and think christianity has a thousand fold over hurt more people then being gay has. Inelegant way to say that, but hope you get the meaning. You have opened a business and refuse to serve me for an activity which is perfectly legal in each of our countries. You bake cakes. You chose to bake cakes. I am not forcing you to bake cakes, you decided to make your living at it. All you are refusing to do is serve me. As I said, it is the equivalent of not letting black people sit at the counter. Then I misunderstood what that was all about. I thought the gay couple were wanting the baker to make them a cake and the baker did not want to make one. If that is in fact what that was all about then you are wanting to force someone to do something.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 20:26:45 GMT -5
What if the cake is on the shelf with a price tag on it?
Today it is a cake, tomorrow it is gas and groceries. "Sir, I noticed another male in your backyard- so before I do your landscaping I need to know the nature of your relationship"
Question here, I thought and think that the big deal with sitting in the back of the bus back in the 60's was mostly settled by a boycott of the bus companies. Is that so or am I mistaken? I know laws were made, but I think it was later. If so, wouldn't that mean that economics in the racist 60's were capable of handling some of the load of fixing racism? Again, I am asking about this, not stating as fact.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Mar 16, 2015 20:27:29 GMT -5
You live in the US. Ignorance of the laws is considered no excuse. Don't open a bakery, problem solved.
Have state close their colleges and universities and that wold also solve the problem. I am stating my understanding of what 'freedom of religion' and 'freedom of speech" mean. If I am ignorant of what they mean, point me to something other then your or other posters opinions. The wikipedia snippet did not contradict my view. I think you might be close to my understanding on the freedom of speech. The issue is you see the university as an agent of the government. And I correctly, do not.
But here's a nice URL on the legal stuff. Turns out our modern sensibilities might be off from the original intention.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. Although adopted as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, most First Amendment doctrine is a result of twenty-century litigation. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. It wasn't until 1925, in Gitlow v. New York, that the Supreme Court extended the First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.
definitions.uslegal.com/f/freedom-of-speech/
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 16, 2015 20:27:46 GMT -5
I'm often accused of being sheltered, but you get the golden trophy if you've honestly never heard a song whose lyrics are as bad or worse than hanging folks from trees. Actually I don't hear many songs with lyrics worse than that. I don't listen to those stations on the radio. And since no one lines up in the parking lot at work singing songs about doing violence to women or minorities or whoever, I can avoid hearing them. Unlike the students at the university. This was on a chartered bus, not in public. Even if it had been public, the fact remains that in public places that don't expressly forbid playing music, you or I could pop a "Kill those Mofo Police" chart-topping rap single into our stereo and nobody would have the legal right to stop us. The courts obviously wouldn't constitute it as a threat on the part of the "artists".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 20:29:54 GMT -5
You have opened a business and refuse to serve me for an activity which is perfectly legal in each of our countries. You bake cakes. You chose to bake cakes. I am not forcing you to bake cakes, you decided to make your living at it. All you are refusing to do is serve me. As I said, it is the equivalent of not letting black people sit at the counter. Then I misunderstood what that was all about. I thought the gay couple were wanting the baker to make them a cake and the baker did not want to make one. If that is in fact what that was all about then you are wanting to force someone to do something. The baker has nothing against baking cakes. There is nothing in their religion against baking cakes. They have no problem with baking cakes and if they think about it for a second they must realise that gay people have to have eaten pieces of their cakes in the past. There is nothing in their religion against baking cakes.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 16, 2015 20:33:27 GMT -5
The people here arguing with Dark that a storefront business can be an LLP, right? At least in Canada.
Do you have to incorporate to be a storefront retailer in the US?
I'm not sure why the distinction between corporation and LLP is relevant here as it relates to your objective of prohibiting people who refuse to serve homosexuals from serving anyone in a public venue.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 20:34:50 GMT -5
Then I misunderstood what that was all about. I thought the gay couple were wanting the baker to make them a cake and the baker did not want to make one. If that is in fact what that was all about then you are wanting to force someone to do something. The baker has nothing against baking cakes. There is nothing in their religion against baking cakes. They have no problem with baking cakes and if they think about it for a second they must realise that gay people have to have eaten pieces of their cakes in the past. There is nothing in their religion against baking cakes. There is, or I am thinking they believe there is, something in their religion against supporting gay marriage.
|
|