LGBT Activists Spend $15 Million Reminding Voters about Biden’s Most Unpopular Agenda

[Zaha Torte]

If we’re going to have brouhahas over common rhetorical utterances then I’ll go make popcorn.

You commonly refer to people that disagree with you as your "enemies"? This is common?

 

[Pommer]

You commonly refer to people that disagree with you as your "enemies"? This is common?

“Political adversaries” works too, but “enemy” seems to got a bee in your bonnet so, maybe it’s just you?

 

[Zaha Torte]

“Political adversaries” works too, but “enemy” seems to got a bee in your bonnet so, maybe it’s just you?

So far, I have met only the two people who refer to those that simply disagree with them as their enemies.

I don't believe it is a common thing to refer to people as. And if it is - it shouldn't. Nice try at ad hom though.

 

[A2SG]

What exactly are you referring to?

Certain medical procedures, stuff like that.

It's not that simple.

There was a case where a man wanted a baker to make a cake that had both homophobic rhetoric and Biblical verses that condemned homosexuality written on it - she refused.

She offered to bake the cake and to supply the man with everything he would need to decorate it himself. He sued - and she won - thank God.

I understand the legal issues involved.

You believe that this woman should have been forced by threat of fines or jail to decorate that cake - or choose to abandon the business she made - risking financial ruin for herself and her family because of this man?

I believe that baking a cake, or even decorating it per customer request, doesn't violate her freedom of religion...especially since she chose to bake cakes (and decorate them) for a living.

But I do understand the SCOTUS doesn't agree.

When I went to get a massage this last week - my wife got me one for my birthday (I hadn't had one since before COVID) - I had to sign a form about inappropriate behavior - that I was free to end the session if the massage therapist did anything I felt was inappropriate and she was free to do the same if I did something she found inappropriate.

During the session I asked her about the form and if that sort of thing happened a lot - she claimed that nothing had ever happened to her - but she shared that another massage therapist refused to massage men because of something that had happened to her.

Discriminatory? A job is a job? Could I sue if I don't get the massage therapist of my choice?

Dunno. You'd have to check with a lawyer. I'm not one.

Neat.

The State could also claim that a man is a woman - that would not make it so.

I suppose that would depend on why the state is making that claim, or the basis for it.

But the fact remains, states cannot deny same sex couples a marriage license. Churches can refuse to officiate the ceremony, but they have no say over who gets a license.

Something being legal does not mean it is morally right or factually correct.

True. Morals are, of course, subjective and yours to decide for yourself.

It is not discrimination to offer a privilege only to those that qualify.

Marriage isn't defined as a privilege, but a right. And states cannot deny marriage licenses to same sex couples, per SCOTUS.

So, the term is meaningless?

Nope. It means what it means. That might differ from one couple to another, though.

The state doesn't decide what a marriage means to anyone.

A banana is whatever the individuals who have it decide that it is?

If you want to call your automobile a banana, don't expect me to say you can't.

But you do realize there is a difference between how something is legally defined, and how it's defined by individuals, right? Marriage is a legal agreement between two people. What they agree to is between them, the state doesn't regulate or enforce that agreement, it only codifies it for tax purposes and other legal issues.

The baker in question offered to bake cakes for the event - even the wedding cake - they just did not want to decorate it.

They have that right. Personally, I think they're being petty and are trying to impose their religious views on other people...but, as I said, the SCOTUS has ruled they have the legal right to do that.

They felt that decorating it - turning it from any cake into a "wedding cake" - would be directly supporting the event.

If it were a First Communion cake, does that mean the baker supports Catholicism? If it were a Bar Mitzvah cake, do they support Judaism? If it were a "Happy Divorce" cake (yes, I know someone who did that), does that mean they support divorce?

Seems an odd view, to me, as well as a bad business decision. But, admittedly, the SCOTUS does support their right to do that.

You see - their objection was to the event - not the individuals who were purchasing the cake.

You think they would have been fine with making the wedding cake for a "same-sex wedding" if the person asking had been heterosexual?

You see - this was the "slippery slope" that many Christians had claimed would happen if "same-sex marriage" became legal.

That's why the slippery slope is a fallacy.

These bakeries had been around long before this decision was made - so up until that point they never had any conflict with baking cakes and their religious beliefs.

Yeah. Curious, isn't it?

Yet the State made a decision that now potentially put them at odds.

Their business did not change. Their religion did not change. But the State changed everything - so you cannot blame the bakers or their religion for the conflict - because they are guaranteed the right to free expression of their religion.

Yup. And now, I suppose, lunch counters can refuse to let people who aren't desirable to sit there. Or drink from certain water fountains, I suppose.

Funny how these things work, huh?

I blame the same-sex couple who demanded the cake from that particular bakery.

I'm sure you do. I'm also willing to bet if they refused to bake a cake for someone from a religion they disagreed with, they'd be faced with the same reaction.

If their only motivation had been getting a cake for their "wedding" - then they would have just gone somewhere else, but they chose that bakery and sued because they were making a statement.

Which was their right to do. The SCOTUS ruled against them, though. These things happen.

They were even referred to another bakery that would accommodate them.

Sure. Just like there were other lunch counters and water fountains back in the day.

By the way - many Muslim-owned bakeries refuse to bake cakes for "same-sex weddings" too - but we barely hear about them.

I wonder why?

Yeah. Curious, isn't it?

You are free to do so.

Yet - I hope you would have supported any decision he made.

Well, to be fair, he didn't ask for, or need, my support either way. I was just an employee. I didn't even have to do any work for that flyer, personally, so I wasn't involved.

Or would you have abandoned him?

Nah. I liked the guy.

Maybe because they are called bigots and threatened with jail and financial ruin if they do?

Sometimes, taking a stand comes with consequences. If you want to take that stand, you need to be ready to deal with those consequences.

-- A2SG, or, another way to look at it: sticks and stones and all that.....

 

[Zaha Torte]

Certain medical procedures, stuff like that.

I will ask again - what exactly are you referring to?

I understand the legal issues involved.

You understand but you do not agree - right?

If it were up to you - that woman would have had to write out the homophobic messages?

I believe that baking a cake, or even decorating it per customer request, doesn't violate her freedom of religion...especially since she chose to bake cakes (and decorate them) for a living.

I don't believe the woman was particularly religious - the opposite in fact.

Do you believe that you can force an artist to paint any portrait you want them to?

But I do understand the SCOTUS doesn't agree.

As you keep saying. I understand that you disagree with this SCOTUS decision.

This is a good place for me to point out that I also disagree with certain decisions that have been made.

So - you don't need to keep repeating that you disagree and also don't need to keep reiterating that the SCOTUS or some other authority disagrees with what I claim.

That does not really mean anything to me.

You disagree with SCOTUS - yet still share your opinion - just like I may disagree with other decisions - yet still share mine.

Dunno. You'd have to check with a lawyer. I'm not one.

I asked for your opinion.

I suppose that would depend on why the state is making that claim, or the basis for it.

Why should that matter? A man can never be a woman or a woman a man. The reason or basis would not matter.

But the fact remains, states cannot deny same sex couples a marriage license.

A decision I disagree with. They do not qualify for that privilege.

Churches can refuse to officiate the ceremony, but they have no say over who gets a license.

Then don't call it a marriage. Don't refer to them as "husband" or "wife". These are not secular institutions or terms.

True. Morals are, of course, subjective and yours to decide for yourself.

No one believes that.

Marriage isn't defined as a privilege, but a right.

Another decision I disagree with. It is a very illogical and bizarre thing to claim that marriage is a right.

And states cannot deny marriage licenses to same sex couples, per SCOTUS.

Yes - and just like how you have been claiming how you disagree with SCOTUS over and over - I am claiming to disagree with them here.

Unlike you - I reference God and His Word (as well as all human history) as my basis for disagreeing - instead of my opinion only.

Nope. It means what it means. That might differ from one couple to another, though.

So, it means nothing. Like how the term "woman" has become meaningless since everyone just applies their own definition.

The state doesn't decide what a marriage means to anyone.

The State literally changed the definition to include same-sex couples. They certainly act like they decide what marriage means to everyone.

If you want to call your automobile a banana, don't expect me to say you can't.

You misunderstand - I did not say that they can "call" a banana whatever they want - but that the banana is whatever they want.

I would hope that you would say something if you witnessed someone trying to peel and eat their automobile.

But you do realize there is a difference between how something is legally defined, and how it's defined by individuals, right?

That should not be the case.

Marriage is a legal agreement between two people.

A marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman and God.

What they agree to is between them, the state doesn't regulate or enforce that agreement, it only codifies it for tax purposes and other legal issues.

God gave marriage to Man and already instructed us on what it is for.

They have that right. Personally, I think they're being petty and are trying to impose their religious views on other people...but, as I said, the SCOTUS has ruled they have the legal right to do that.

I fundamentally disagree.

When the customer has other bakeries available that would accommodate them - where is the imposition?

If I were to go to an LGBT-owned bakery and demand a homophobic cake - like that one case - they would need to bake it and decorate it exactly as I requested?

If not - they are "imposing their views" on me?

If it were a First Communion cake, does that mean the baker supports Catholicism? If it were a Bar Mitzvah cake, do they support Judaism? If it were a "Happy Divorce" cake (yes, I know someone who did that), does that mean they support divorce?

That is not up for you or me or SCOTUS or anyone else to decide.

Seems an odd view, to me, as well as a bad business decision.

But it's their view and their business.

But, admittedly, the SCOTUS does support their right to do that.

And you disagree. You would want to force them. how far does that go?

That's why the slippery slope is a fallacy.

Not if it is proven true. Which it has been.

Yeah. Curious, isn't it?

Not really. We know what happened and why.

Yup. And now, I suppose, lunch counters can refuse to let people who aren't desirable to sit there. Or drink from certain water fountains, I suppose.

You are trying to make it about the customers again and not the event they were requesting a cake for - which was the actual thing they didn't want to be associated with.

Again, I ask - would they have made the wedding cake for the "same-sex wedding" if the customer had been a heterosexual?

Or what if the cake were for an actual wedding - but the person requesting it had been a homosexual - you think they would have refused?

Please answer these questions and stop trying to make this a case of discrimination.

An establishment could refuse people if they were using the counter for something other than lunch. And what if they were doing something considered inappropriate with that water fountain?

Funny how these things work, huh?

It is funny how you keep trying to make it a case of discrimination.

I'm sure you do. I'm also willing to bet if they refused to bake a cake for someone from a religion they disagreed with, they'd be faced with the same reaction.

Again - it was about the event - not the individuals.

Your boss could have refused to print those fliers if they said something derogatory about Jewish people.

Which was their right to do. The SCOTUS ruled against them, though. These things happen.

So, SCOTUS claimed that they didn't have a right to do it.

Sure. Just like there were other lunch counters and water fountains back in the day.

If you are not going to use those things for their intended purpose....

Yeah. Curious, isn't it?

No, we also know why this is.

Well, to be fair, he didn't ask for, or need, my support either way. I was just an employee. I didn't even have to do any work for that flyer, personally, so I wasn't involved.

Did he have to ask you for your support in order to have it?

Nah. I liked the guy.

Even if he decided to refuse to make the fliers?

Sometimes, taking a stand comes with consequences. If you want to take that stand, you need to be ready to deal with those consequences.

The First Amendment disagrees.

-- A2SG, or, another way to look at it: sticks and stones and all that.....

You mean threats of prison and financial ruin, right?

 

[Pommer]

The First Amendment disagrees.

You mean threats of prison and financial ruin, right?

We all have First Amendment rights to “peititon the government for the redress of grievences”, but sometimes it takes a very long time for an issue to come before the government, which is what we’re seeing now…55 years of people first telling to the government to leave them alone and then enlisted the derned thing into siding with them, increasingly, and there’s “pushback” to that, which is normal.

But I cannot see how people can take-to-the-streets to make sure other people don’t have the same rights they, themselves, have as citizens of this fair Land.

 

[Zaha Torte]

We all have First Amendment rights to “peititon the government for the redress of grievences”, but sometimes it takes a very long time for an issue to come before the government, which is what we’re seeing now…55 years of people first telling to the government to leave them alone and then enlisted the derned thing into siding with them, increasingly, and there’s “pushback” to that, which is normal.

But I cannot see how people can take-to-the-streets to make sure other people don’t have the same rights they, themselves, have as citizens of this fair Land.

What "rights" are you referring to?

 

[Pommer]

What "rights" are you referring to?

The rights for gay men and lesbian women to marry one another, that was decided in 2015.
SCOTUS could reverse itself (again) and in under a decade, too, [won’t that be a fun-sell “trust, us we’ll eventually decide ‘correctly’!”] *

I don’t see people in 2024 marching to have that rescinded, though.

*not an actual quote by anyone but the madman in Pommer’s brainpan.

 

[A2SG]

I will ask again - what exactly are you referring to?

We can start with denying certain medical procedures, if you need to be specific.

You understand but you do not agree - right?

If it were up to you - that woman would have had to write out the homophobic messages?

The point is it isn't up to me. If she wants to decline that particular customer's business, that's her decision to make. Whether or not I agree with it is immaterial.

I don't believe the woman was particularly religious - the opposite in fact.

Do you believe that you can force an artist to paint any portrait you want them to?

Nope. I'm just saying that I don't think a portrait artist refusing to paint portraits is a particularly good business model. But to each their own.

As you keep saying. I understand that you disagree with this SCOTUS decision.

This is a good place for me to point out that I also disagree with certain decisions that have been made.

So - you don't need to keep repeating that you disagree and also don't need to keep reiterating that the SCOTUS or some other authority disagrees with what I claim.

I'm merely making the point that whether or not I agree with someone's decision has no bearing on their legal right to make it.

That does not really mean anything to me.

You disagree with SCOTUS - yet still share your opinion - just like I may disagree with other decisions - yet still share mine.

Cool. That's what discussion forums are there for.

I asked for your opinion.

And I'm not a lawyer, so I can't answer the question. I don't know the law in whatever jurisdiction you're in.

Why should that matter? A man can never be a woman or a woman a man. The reason or basis would not matter.

Biology is one thing, gender is another. They're not the same thing.

And no state has the authority to define either of them for any individual.

A decision I disagree with. They do not qualify for that privilege.

They do, and it's not a privilege, it's a right. Your disagreement notwithstanding.

Then don't call it a marriage. Don't refer to them as "husband" or "wife". These are not secular institutions or terms.

Yeah, they are. Churches don't issue marriage licenses, the state does that. And no marriage can be legal without one.

Religions don't have the exclusive right to define any of those terms. People can, and have, gotten married without any church involvement whatsoever.

No one believes that.

Many people believe it. And it remains true, even if people believe the morality they've subjectively ascribed to comes from somewhere or someone else.

Another decision I disagree with. It is a very illogical and bizarre thing to claim that marriage is a right.

And yet, it is. Even if you don't understand it.

Yes - and just like how you have been claiming how you disagree with SCOTUS over and over - I am claiming to disagree with them here.

Fine. But that doesn't change the fact that you need a state issued marriage license to get married. You don't need a church.

Unlike you - I reference God and His Word (as well as all human history) as my basis for disagreeing - instead of my opinion only.

You're free to base your opinion on whatever you like.

So, it means nothing. Like how the term "woman" has become meaningless since everyone just applies their own definition.

Lots of things have subjective meanings, which will differ from one individual to another. For example, some may define marriage as a requirement to have children, but some don't. Some get married, even without any intention to have kids. Heck, there are some people who don't even view sexual fidelity as a requirement for marriage.

To each their own.

The State literally changed the definition to include same-sex couples. They certainly act like they decide what marriage means to everyone.

Actually, several states tried to change the definition by excluding same-sex couples. That was eventually ruled unconstitutional. Prior to the 1970s, there was never a specific law in any US state prohibiting two men or two women from marrying...it was a de facto rule, not de jure.

You misunderstand - I did not say that they can "call" a banana whatever they want - but that the banana is whatever they want.

Is this a banana?

It isn't.

(Hint: ever hear of "The Treachery of Images," a 1929 painting by Belgian surrealist painter René Magritte?)

I would hope that you would say something if you witnessed someone trying to peel and eat their automobile.

I might suggest they get treated for pica.

That should not be the case.

Why not? The law defines things for legal purposes, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with that definition or abide by it if you don't wish to. Isn't that the point to either one of us disagreeing with certain SCOTUS decisions?

If you want to define your own marriage as a religious sacrament, that's your business...and it isn't mine to say otherwise. But regardless, you still have to get a state-issued marriage license whether you're married in a church, by a justice of the peace, by a judge, or even by a ship captain.

A marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman and God.

Mine isn't. My wife and I only made vows to each other. There is no third party in our marriage.

God gave marriage to Man and already instructed us on what it is for.

You're free to believe this, if you wish. Just as other people are free to not believe it.

I fundamentally disagree.

That's your right.

When the customer has other bakeries available that would accommodate them - where is the imposition?

If I were to go to an LGBT-owned bakery and demand a homophobic cake - like that one case - they would need to bake it and decorate it exactly as I requested?

If not - they are "imposing their views" on me?

That is not up for you or me or SCOTUS or anyone else to decide.

But it's their view and their business.

Yup.

And you disagree. You would want to force them. how far does that go?

I never once said I'd force them to do anything. I specified they had the legal right to conduct their business however they wish to.

You wondered why I kept bringing up the SCOTUS ruling. That's why.

Not if it is proven true. Which it has been.

Nope. Same sex marriage being legal has no bearing on any other marriage whatsoever.

Not really. We know what happened and why.

Well, there are quite a few opinions as to the why.

You are trying to make it about the customers again and not the event they were requesting a cake for - which was the actual thing they didn't want to be associated with.

And the SCOTUS ruled they have that right. Whether or not I agree with their decision.

Again, I ask - would they have made the wedding cake for the "same-sex wedding" if the customer had been a heterosexual?

You'd have to ask them. I can't speak for them.

I'm not sure if there are many heterosexual couples that will have same-sex weddings, however, let alone require a cake for it. Though, I do recall an Adam Sandler movie about that subject, but I never saw it. I have no idea if they had a cake made for that movie.

Or what if the cake were for an actual wedding - but the person requesting it had been a homosexual - you think they would have refused?

Please answer these questions and stop trying to make this a case of discrimination.

My only answer is that they're free, per SCOTUS, to refuse to bake cakes for those customers, regardless of whether or not I view their actions as discriminatory. I'm willing to bet they don't care a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys what I think.

An establishment could refuse people if they were using the counter for something other than lunch. And what if they were doing something considered inappropriate with that water fountain?

Different circumstances, different rules.

It is funny how you keep trying to make it a case of discrimination.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em. You're free to disagree, as are they.

Again - it was about the event - not the individuals.

Your boss could have refused to print those fliers if they said something derogatory about Jewish people.

Yeah, he could have. He didn't.

By the way, as I recall, it did.

So, SCOTUS claimed that they didn't have a right to do it.

Yup. That's what they're there for, to render decisions on the law according to the Constitution.

If you are not going to use those things for their intended purpose....

I seem to recall people being refused service based on who they were, not what they were going to do.

No, we also know why this is.

Well, again, there are quite a few opinions as to the why.

Did he have to ask you for your support in order to have it?

Even if he decided to refuse to make the fliers?

I already said he didn't need it.

The First Amendment disagrees.

No, it doesn't. There is no provision in the First Amendment protecting you from all possible consequences of using your freedom of speech. It only limits which laws congress can make.

You mean threats of prison and financial ruin, right?

Those could be possible consequences, sure. But, let's not forget, a threat alone is just an expression of free speech. Unless that threat comes with a reasonable expectation of imminent or physical danger, there's no crime in simply threatening someone.

-- A2SG, there's a difference between a threat and a credible threat, after all.....

 

[Zaha Torte]

The rights for gay men and lesbian women to marry one another, that was decided in 2015.
SCOTUS could reverse itself (again) and in under a decade, too, [won’t that be a fun-sell “trust, us we’ll eventually decide ‘correctly’!”] *

I don’t see people in 2024 marching to have that rescinded, though.

*not an actual quote by anyone but the madman in Pommer’s brainpan.

Why do you consider same-sex marriage and actual marriage to be the same?

 

[Pommer]

Why do you consider same-sex marriage and actual marriage to be the same?

Legally there is no difference.
”Separate-but-equal” was repudiated in Brown v Board of Education, (overturning Plessy v Ferguson, btw).

 

[7thKeeper]

The First Amendment disagrees.

I'll only address this bit, because this tends to crop up a lot among Americans, recently more on the right side of US politics, but have seen it used by both leanings in various situations.
I don't understand this "rights without consequences" arguement. It's been used for other purposes as well, but taking the 1st here, in general, always used as a way to argue "I can say whatever I want and no consequences from others are allowed." Essentially. Being a bit pointed perhaps, but that's the general gist of it. It's always about rights, never about responsibilities. This might be a total culture thing, but rigged are always balanced by the responsibilities those rights being you. You are allowed to say what you want, but you also have the responsibility to bear the consequences of your own actions. Those actions might cause some people to like you, others to dislike you and even tell others not to deal with you because you hold a certain opinion. That's how it is.

 

[Diamond72]

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) plans to drop big bucks reminding swing-state Americans how they’ve successfully overtaken classrooms, sports, business, entertainment, and politics with radical gender ideology under Joe Biden.

Does this mean if Trump is elected they will have to go back into their closet?

 

[AlexB23]

I prefer static to dynamic friction. It allows me to stand on slopes and grab things.

Woo, you took me back to physics class with this one. Physics is more interesting compared to politics, but sadly, some folks' science denial gums up the physical and life sciences thread on this forum a lot. But that is for another thread.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Legally there is no difference.

Sure - if you change the definition of a word to be "whatever you want it to be" - then there are no differences between any of the words we use.

Do you believe that a man being legally recognized as a woman makes them a woman?

”Separate-but-equal” was repudiated in Brown v Board of Education, (overturning Plessy v Ferguson, btw).

Why do you believe this is relevant to a discussion about sex and marriage?

 

[Zaha Torte]

I'll only address this bit, because this tends to crop up a lot among Americans, recently more on the right side of US politics, but have seen it used by both leanings in various situations.
I don't understand this "rights without consequences" arguement. It's been used for other purposes as well, but taking the 1st here, in general, always used as a way to argue "I can say whatever I want and no consequences from others are allowed." Essentially. Being a bit pointed perhaps, but that's the general gist of it. It's always about rights, never about responsibilities. This might be a total culture thing, but rigged are always balanced by the responsibilities those rights being you. You are allowed to say what you want, but you also have the responsibility to bear the consequences of your own actions. Those actions might cause some people to like you, others to dislike you and even tell others not to deal with you because you hold a certain opinion. That's how it is.

My mentioning the First Amendment was not about freedom of speech - but about the free exercise of religion.

The First Amendment reads,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There can be no law that prohibits a person from the free exercise of their religion - which means - no law that stops them from practicing what they preach.

You are free not to like people that have a religion and actively live according to its precepts - but that would make you bigoted.

 

[Belk]

Sure - if you change the definition of a word to be "whatever you want it to be" - then there are no differences between any of the words we use.

Do you believe that a man being legally recognized as a woman makes them a woman?

As far as the law is concerned? Yes.

Why do you believe this is relevant to a discussion about sex and marriage?

 

[Belk]

My mentioning the First Amendment was not about freedom of speech - but about the free exercise of religion.

The First Amendment reads,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There can be no law that prohibits a person from the free exercise of their religion - which means - no law that stops them from practicing what they preach.

You are free not to like people that have a religion and actively live according to its precepts - but that would make you bigoted.

The Rastafarians would disagree. The SCOTUS has ruled that there are limits to the restrictions of the first amendment.

 

[Pommer]

Sure - if you change the definition of a word to be "whatever you want it to be" - then there are no differences between any of the words we use.

Do you believe that a man being legally recognized as a woman makes them a woman?

Legally, yes.

Why do you believe this is relevant to a discussion about sex and marriage?

There was speculation that the Supreme Court would keep same-sex marriage in a different legal category than tradition male-female marriage when the Obergefell (et. al.) case was under consideration, which would have reinstated the “separate-but-equal” doctrine that the 1954 court repudiated, in Brown.

 

[Zaha Torte]

As far as the law is concerned? Yes.

What is a "legal woman" and how should they be treated differently - under the law - than a "legal man"?

The Rastafarians would disagree.

What happened to the Rastafarians?

The SCOTUS has ruled that there are limits to the restrictions of the first amendment.

Sure - we cannot violate the rights of others.