Overreaching gay rights movement; Indiana's religious freedom act (2)

[Avid]

Good thing that's not happening. What people want is to not have have to be concerned with anything other than having the funds to pay for the product or service they are looking for.

That is not what happened to bring about the problem. It came about because the gay people were not satisfied to order a cake, but wanted a specific thing put on it (proven to not be acceptable in the other direction,) and made a point to order it from someone they figured would not like that.

Also, the people pushing the issue are not satisfied with buying a cake. The intend top force other people to accept something that has little or nothing to do with a cake. Someone here posted a number of pictures of wedding cakes, and only one was for a gay wedding. Not detectable as to which. That is certainly acceptable. FORCING someone to make it specifically distinctive for a gay wedding is what the issue was.

 

[AirPo]

That is not what happened to bring about the problem. It came about because the gay people were not satisfied to order a cake, but wanted a pecific thing put on it (proven to not be acceptable in the other direction) and made a point to order it from someone they determined to not like that.

Is there an actual example of that happening in the real world?

Also, the people pushing the issue are not satisfied with buying a cake. The intend top force other people to accept something that has little or nothing to do with a cake. Someone here posted a number of pictures of wedding cakes, and only one was for a gay wedding. Not detectable as to which. That is certainly acceptable. FORCING someone to make it specifically distinctive for a gay wedding is what the issue was.

Is there an actual example of that happening in the real world?

 

[Avid]

As I mentioned, hate speech is hate of people speech. Hate the witch, hate the colored man, hate the woman, hate the right winger...

Hating hate or murder, is different. It is a damaging action, hating bad behaviour helps.

The problem is, though, hating abortion is rapidly being incorporated into the category of disallowed speech.

It is apparently acceptable to kill millions of innocents, but the MURDER must be allowed to live. We cannot exact a proper punishment upon him.

Please explain WHO is in the position of dictating what is acceptable "FREE SPEECH" and what is not acceptable "HATE SPEECH?"

 

[bhsmte]

The problem is, though, hating abortion is rapidly being incorporated into the category of disallowed speech.

Do you have any examples?

Please explain WHO is in the position of dictating what is acceptable "FREE SPEECH" and what is not acceptable "HATE SPEECH?"

First of all, do you acknowledge that freedom of speech is not a limitless right?

And, the law would determine what the difference is between simple freedom of speech and hate speech.

 

[AirPo]

Please explain WHO is in the position of dictating what is acceptable "FREE SPEECH" and what is not acceptable "HATE SPEECH?"

The judge and/or the jury.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The problem is, though, hating abortion is rapidly being incorporated into the category of disallowed speech.

It is apparently acceptable to kill millions of innocents, but the MURDER must be allowed to live. We cannot exact a proper punishment upon him.

You've just illustrated the real issue -- hard to hate the act without hating the people who are involved in it.

Please explain WHO is in the position of dictating what is acceptable "FREE SPEECH" and what is not acceptable "HATE SPEECH?"

The judiciary.

 

[Belk]

The problem is, though, hating abortion is rapidly being incorporated into the category of disallowed speech.

Funny. I must of missed all those people being hauled off to jail for talking about abortion.

It is apparently acceptable to kill millions of innocents, but the MURDER must be allowed to live. We cannot exact a proper punishment upon him.

Please explain WHO is in the position of dictating what is acceptable "FREE SPEECH" and what is not acceptable "HATE SPEECH?"

Did you seriously come into a thread and complain about people litigating against those who break the law and then go on to lament that you are not allowed to exact mob retribution on people performing legal actions?

 

[Loudmouth]

Reality is this is the perfect way to get back at people that you feel that have opposed you.this is not a fight for equal housing, jobs, or for being refuse something that is essential for life. This is a statement of defiance letting Christians that they will conform or they will be sued. This is nothing more than a strong arm tactics used by any militia or mob.

It is about equality.

Your morality is so backwards that you would consider the Civil Rights Act to be discrimination against segregationists. Perhaps you should think on that for a second.

 

[Loudmouth]

You forgot that the owner has religious rights as well which weren't given up by opening a business.

Religious rights never included violating the rights of others. Religious rights are not a carte blanche to do whatever you like other people.

 

[brewmama]

Religious rights never included violating the rights of others. Religious rights are not a carte blanche to do whatever you like other people.

But it should be being allowed to run your business the way you want.

 

[Avid]

The judge and/or the jury.

Please show anything in the US Constitution that indicates this. Show where ANY form of speech is reserved from the First Amendment protection of Free Speech.

 

[Loudmouth]

But it should be being allowed to run your business the way you want.

That was settled back in the 1960's with the Civil Rights Act. You can't use your business to discriminate against others. The public has rights, too.

 

[Avid]

Funny. I must of missed all those people being hauled off to jail for talking about abortion.

I have not missed it. If they speak about it anywhere near an abortion clinic, they certainly have been hauled off to jail.

Did you seriously come into a thread and complain about people litigating against those who break the law and then go on to lament that you are not allowed to exact mob retribution on people performing legal actions?

Refusing to participate in something that is wrong according to a citizen's protected religious freedom is not equivalent to MOB RETRIBUTION. The exact opposite is happening. Right expressions of constitutionally protected religious freedom are under assault in this and other ways by the democratic (being born of democracy) mob.

It is LAWFUL, LEGAL according to the US Constitution to peaceably assemble, and speak about what abortion really is, but that has gotten people arrested. The US Constitution guarantees other rights, but in 1968, contrary to that founding document, lawful, legal possession of certain firearms were made illegal. People have gone to jail for that. Some were people who had not ever been arrested for anything prior.

We are discussing going the OPPOSITE way with this, though. Illegal behavior is made legal, being required to be allowed where it is against the will of the people, and even required to be accepted as normal, though it is deviant behavior.

 

[bhsmte]

But it should be being allowed to run your business the way you want.

As long as the way you want doesn't violate the law and or the rights of others sure, run it the way you want.

 

[bhsmte]

I have not missed it. If they speak about it anywhere near an abortion clinic, they certainly have been hauled off to jail.

If they are hauled off, it is because they broke the law, not because they can not picket if they have the proper permits and they don't harass people.

Ever seen some of the youtube videos of picketers harassing people who are going into the clinics?

 

[bhsmte]

Please show anything in the US Constitution that indicates this. Show where ANY form of speech is reserved from the First Amendment protection of Free Speech.

You really don't understand when freedom of speech reaches its limits?

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Maren]

I have not missed it. If they speak about it anywhere near an abortion clinic, they certainly have been hauled off to jail.


It is LAWFUL, LEGAL according to the US Constitution to peaceably assemble, and speak about what abortion really is, but that has gotten people arrested.

I'd be interested to seeing citations, every example I know of they were not arrested for protesting but for breaking laws. Protesting has limits -- such as you cannot go onto a business' private property to protest. Additionally, to help keep the peace and ensure traffic flow, there are limits to where you can protest, even on public land.

And you realize the greatest limits to free speech actually occurred when the Framers were still alive, during John Adams administration (look up the Alien and Sedition acts) -- basically you could be arrested for criticizing the government. The Founders did not see our rights as being absolute, but rather agreed that there were limits (though the Alien and Sedition Act was controversial, to say the least, and would be found unconstitutional today).

The US Constitution guarantees other rights, but in 1968, contrary to that founding document, lawful, legal possession of certain firearms were made illegal. People have gone to jail for that. Some were people who had not ever been arrested for anything prior.

We are discussing going the OPPOSITE way with this, though. Illegal behavior is made legal, being required to be allowed where it is against the will of the people, and even required to be accepted as normal, though it is deviant behavior.

Again, there have always been limits on firearms. For example, in the western US in the late 1800s and early 1900s there were frequently laws banning firearms within a towns city limits, where the guns must be left with the sheriff.

You keep going back to "illegal behavior" as if our laws should always be the same. Perhaps we should once again put women back as second class citizens, after all, it is "illegal behavior" for a woman to vote or to own property. For that matter, if we go back to Rome (where many of the ideas of our founding and our laws come from), Christianity is "illegal behavior." Your using "illegal behavior" as a pejorative for homosexuality is noting more than an emotional ploy and, as such, is a logical fallacy.

 

[Avid]

Is there an actual example of that happening in the real world?


Is there an actual example of that happening in the real world?

Have you read this thread from the beginning?

 

[Maren]

Please show anything in the US Constitution that indicates this. Show where ANY form of speech is reserved from the First Amendment protection of Free Speech.

The easiest example is yelling fire in a theater -- that is quite illegal. Basically, speech is limited by the government if it is deemed to be threatening to the health or lives of others. For example, threatening to kill the President is a crime under Federal law.

And, as I mentioned in my previous post, if you want an example that existed in the time of the writers of the Constitution, there is the Alien and Sedition Act.

 

[Maren]

Have you read this thread from the beginning?

Yes, I've seen a lot of accusations but no actual examples. The closest (I think it was this thread) I've seen is the Preacher who went to Canada, was told he did not have permission to set up a table about abortion on a college campus, and was arrested for Mischief (not for speech) when he set the table up anyway.