|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 31 2018 09:53 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 09:48 xDaunt wrote:On July 31 2018 09:45 hunts wrote:On July 31 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 31 2018 08:37 Simberto wrote:On July 31 2018 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2018 08:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Do they not understand the separation of church and government? Lol... Just betting that enough citizens don't, or will agree enough, I think. This was like Trump leaking the Cohen thing and nobody realizing they were failing to meet a basic journalistic standard on anonymity or how ridiculous their speculation on who they talked to was. I feel like this is the logical conclusion of "religious liberty", US-style. It is, and never was, about actual religious liberty. It was always about the right to be an asshole because you claim that the bible tells you to. US "religious liberty" is about giving christians additional rights. They are not even subtle in the way that they only see christianity as a religion that deserves that liberty. And it is never about the liberty to be a christian and not be discriminated against based on that, because that is not something that is actually happening. It is always about the liberty to be a christian and discriminate against other people due to that. But of course pushing a fundamentalist christian agenda works a lot better if you call it "religious liberty" and not "christian fascism" In the words of the immortal Simon Phoenix: “You can’t take away people’s right to be assholes.” Actually yes you can, but your ilk are fighting very hard to remain bigoted assholes for literally no sane reason. First Amendment rights and equal protection under the law — which is not a one-way street — certainly qualify as sane reasons. They don't once you take about 5 seconds to realize that hate speech is not protect and that you cannot deny service to someone based on their gender race sexual orientation or religion. Furthermore If this is really what you want you will find yourself quite sad when all of the non christian, gay, and immigrant doctors lawyers bankers and I nvestors decide to say fuck you to the bigoted christian assholes and deny you service for what you are.
Actually, hate speech is protected. You may want to check out what the law actually is before making such bold, vitriolic proclamations.
|
On July 31 2018 10:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 09:53 hunts wrote:On July 31 2018 09:48 xDaunt wrote:On July 31 2018 09:45 hunts wrote:On July 31 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 31 2018 08:37 Simberto wrote:On July 31 2018 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2018 08:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Do they not understand the separation of church and government? Lol... Just betting that enough citizens don't, or will agree enough, I think. This was like Trump leaking the Cohen thing and nobody realizing they were failing to meet a basic journalistic standard on anonymity or how ridiculous their speculation on who they talked to was. I feel like this is the logical conclusion of "religious liberty", US-style. It is, and never was, about actual religious liberty. It was always about the right to be an asshole because you claim that the bible tells you to. US "religious liberty" is about giving christians additional rights. They are not even subtle in the way that they only see christianity as a religion that deserves that liberty. And it is never about the liberty to be a christian and not be discriminated against based on that, because that is not something that is actually happening. It is always about the liberty to be a christian and discriminate against other people due to that. But of course pushing a fundamentalist christian agenda works a lot better if you call it "religious liberty" and not "christian fascism" In the words of the immortal Simon Phoenix: “You can’t take away people’s right to be assholes.” Actually yes you can, but your ilk are fighting very hard to remain bigoted assholes for literally no sane reason. First Amendment rights and equal protection under the law — which is not a one-way street — certainly qualify as sane reasons. They don't once you take about 5 seconds to realize that hate speech is not protect and that you cannot deny service to someone based on their gender race sexual orientation or religion. Furthermore If this is really what you want you will find yourself quite sad when all of the non christian, gay, and immigrant doctors lawyers bankers and I nvestors decide to say fuck you to the bigoted christian assholes and deny you service for what you are. Actually, hate speech is protected. You may want to check out what the law actually is before making such bold, vitriolic proclamations.
so you want to argue that hate speech doesn't fall under dangerous speech or fighting words? Or would you like to argue that a business is a person and that their rights supersede the rights to not be discriminated against? Either way your argument is flawed and you would be better off discussing it with someone who also likes being a bigot to everyone except for white christian straight men, because it won't fly with anyone else.
|
On July 31 2018 10:07 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 10:04 xDaunt wrote:On July 31 2018 09:53 hunts wrote:On July 31 2018 09:48 xDaunt wrote:On July 31 2018 09:45 hunts wrote:On July 31 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 31 2018 08:37 Simberto wrote:On July 31 2018 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2018 08:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Do they not understand the separation of church and government? Lol... Just betting that enough citizens don't, or will agree enough, I think. This was like Trump leaking the Cohen thing and nobody realizing they were failing to meet a basic journalistic standard on anonymity or how ridiculous their speculation on who they talked to was. I feel like this is the logical conclusion of "religious liberty", US-style. It is, and never was, about actual religious liberty. It was always about the right to be an asshole because you claim that the bible tells you to. US "religious liberty" is about giving christians additional rights. They are not even subtle in the way that they only see christianity as a religion that deserves that liberty. And it is never about the liberty to be a christian and not be discriminated against based on that, because that is not something that is actually happening. It is always about the liberty to be a christian and discriminate against other people due to that. But of course pushing a fundamentalist christian agenda works a lot better if you call it "religious liberty" and not "christian fascism" In the words of the immortal Simon Phoenix: “You can’t take away people’s right to be assholes.” Actually yes you can, but your ilk are fighting very hard to remain bigoted assholes for literally no sane reason. First Amendment rights and equal protection under the law — which is not a one-way street — certainly qualify as sane reasons. They don't once you take about 5 seconds to realize that hate speech is not protect and that you cannot deny service to someone based on their gender race sexual orientation or religion. Furthermore If this is really what you want you will find yourself quite sad when all of the non christian, gay, and immigrant doctors lawyers bankers and I nvestors decide to say fuck you to the bigoted christian assholes and deny you service for what you are. Actually, hate speech is protected. You may want to check out what the law actually is before making such bold, vitriolic proclamations. so you want to argue that hate speech doesn't fall under dangerous speech or fighting words? Or would you like to argue that a business is a person and that their rights supersede the rights to not be discriminated against? Either way your argument is flawed and you would be better off discussing it with someone who also likes being a bigot to everyone except for white christian straight men, because it won't fly with anyone else.
I don’t need to argue to anything. I can, and did, simply tell you what the law is. Your ignorance on these points isn’t surprising. As I have taken great delight in pointing out over the years, people with your views are notorious for trampling all over the law in pursuit of perceived “just” ends.
|
On July 31 2018 10:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 10:07 hunts wrote:On July 31 2018 10:04 xDaunt wrote:On July 31 2018 09:53 hunts wrote:On July 31 2018 09:48 xDaunt wrote:On July 31 2018 09:45 hunts wrote:On July 31 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 31 2018 08:37 Simberto wrote:On July 31 2018 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2018 08:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Do they not understand the separation of church and government? Lol... Just betting that enough citizens don't, or will agree enough, I think. This was like Trump leaking the Cohen thing and nobody realizing they were failing to meet a basic journalistic standard on anonymity or how ridiculous their speculation on who they talked to was. I feel like this is the logical conclusion of "religious liberty", US-style. It is, and never was, about actual religious liberty. It was always about the right to be an asshole because you claim that the bible tells you to. US "religious liberty" is about giving christians additional rights. They are not even subtle in the way that they only see christianity as a religion that deserves that liberty. And it is never about the liberty to be a christian and not be discriminated against based on that, because that is not something that is actually happening. It is always about the liberty to be a christian and discriminate against other people due to that. But of course pushing a fundamentalist christian agenda works a lot better if you call it "religious liberty" and not "christian fascism" In the words of the immortal Simon Phoenix: “You can’t take away people’s right to be assholes.” Actually yes you can, but your ilk are fighting very hard to remain bigoted assholes for literally no sane reason. First Amendment rights and equal protection under the law — which is not a one-way street — certainly qualify as sane reasons. They don't once you take about 5 seconds to realize that hate speech is not protect and that you cannot deny service to someone based on their gender race sexual orientation or religion. Furthermore If this is really what you want you will find yourself quite sad when all of the non christian, gay, and immigrant doctors lawyers bankers and I nvestors decide to say fuck you to the bigoted christian assholes and deny you service for what you are. Actually, hate speech is protected. You may want to check out what the law actually is before making such bold, vitriolic proclamations. so you want to argue that hate speech doesn't fall under dangerous speech or fighting words? Or would you like to argue that a business is a person and that their rights supersede the rights to not be discriminated against? Either way your argument is flawed and you would be better off discussing it with someone who also likes being a bigot to everyone except for white christian straight men, because it won't fly with anyone else. I don’t need to argue to anything. I can, and did, simply tell you what the law is. Your ignorance on these points isn’t surprising. As I have taken great delight in pointing out over the years, people with your views are notorious trampling all over the law in pursuit of perceived “just” ends.
I'm very unconvinced that I'm the ignorant one here, given your posting history in this thread. But since you have provided no evidence, I'm going to go with this is another xdaunt shitshow of "no you misunderstand me lol." So I'm done with this.
So on another note, facebooks stock is quickly plummeting towards a line of support. So I think a pretty good time to buy back in would be probably if it drops another $10-20 or so. On the other hand if it breaks through that line, it may keep falling even further, in which case it might be dangerous to get back in too early if it starts breaking through that support.
|
On July 31 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 08:37 Simberto wrote:On July 31 2018 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2018 08:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Do they not understand the separation of church and government? Lol... Just betting that enough citizens don't, or will agree enough, I think. This was like Trump leaking the Cohen thing and nobody realizing they were failing to meet a basic journalistic standard on anonymity or how ridiculous their speculation on who they talked to was. I feel like this is the logical conclusion of "religious liberty", US-style. It is, and never was, about actual religious liberty. It was always about the right to be an asshole because you claim that the bible tells you to. US "religious liberty" is about giving christians additional rights. They are not even subtle in the way that they only see christianity as a religion that deserves that liberty. And it is never about the liberty to be a christian and not be discriminated against based on that, because that is not something that is actually happening. It is always about the liberty to be a christian and discriminate against other people due to that. But of course pushing a fundamentalist christian agenda works a lot better if you call it "religious liberty" and not "christian fascism" In the words of the immortal Simon Phoenix: “You can’t take away people’s right to be assholes.”
Well this task force seems to be designed to protect the Christians right to be an asshole over other groups in environments like work and schools. There does not seem to be any effort put into justificating its existence.
|
It's funny that xDaunt talks about protecting hate speech, but this very administration is denying the first amendment to it's very own U.S citizens because they're "weird". And this was a discussion we had before: Juggalos.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/12/fbi-documents-detail-gang-investigation-juggalos-f/
By labeling them as a Gang, along with MS-13, their rights are easily being eroded away because they're "different".
“Juggalos are in a type of gang war in California with the MS-13 gang and are holding their own against them,” an unidentified source told law enforcement, according to the 2008 memo. “Juggalos are known to be present in all 50 states and numerous foreign countries.”
It's quite ridiculous because I know a few juggalos myself, and they're nothing but nice, and caring. There may be a few bad apples, just like there is bad apples in a police force, but in the end, the current administration is at war with Freedom of Speech based on the merit if they don't like you or not. The next one is using Christianity as a tool to push their agenda against freedom of speech.
Before talking about "protecting hate speech", we should talk about protecting free speech in general for our citizens first.
|
On July 31 2018 10:39 ShoCkeyy wrote:It's funny that xDaunt talks about protecting hate speech, but this very administration is denying the first amendment to it's very own U.S citizens because they're "weird". And this was a discussion we had before: Juggalos. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/12/fbi-documents-detail-gang-investigation-juggalos-f/By labeling them as a Gang, along with MS-13, their rights are easily being eroded away because they're "different". Show nested quote +“Juggalos are in a type of gang war in California with the MS-13 gang and are holding their own against them,” an unidentified source told law enforcement, according to the 2008 memo. “Juggalos are known to be present in all 50 states and numerous foreign countries.”
It's quite ridiculous because I know a few juggalos myself, and they're nothing but nice, and caring. There may be a few bad apples, just like there is bad apples in a police force, but in the end, the current administration is at war with Freedom of Speech based on the merit if they don't like you or not. The next one is using Christianity as a tool to push their agenda against freedom of speech. Before talking about "protecting hate speech", we should talk about protecting free speech in general for our citizens first.
How is freedom of speech implicated in the Juggalos investigation?
|
That is some standard FBI shit right there: “These people in their clown makeup vaguely resemble a gang, they must be up to no good.”
|
The right has been presenting itself as the party of freedom, but freedom is chaotic, and the right likes order. There's a dissonance there that they have to fix, and often they fix it by having freedom for themselves specifically.
|
The amazing part of this article how weak the justification is for bypassing congress. Conservatives argue “because we can” therefore should. Because it isn’t expressly prohibited, they can change the math on capital gains at anytime.
There is no debating these folks on process or law. You can’t debate the shameless.
|
On July 31 2018 10:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 10:39 ShoCkeyy wrote:It's funny that xDaunt talks about protecting hate speech, but this very administration is denying the first amendment to it's very own U.S citizens because they're "weird". And this was a discussion we had before: Juggalos. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/12/fbi-documents-detail-gang-investigation-juggalos-f/By labeling them as a Gang, along with MS-13, their rights are easily being eroded away because they're "different". “Juggalos are in a type of gang war in California with the MS-13 gang and are holding their own against them,” an unidentified source told law enforcement, according to the 2008 memo. “Juggalos are known to be present in all 50 states and numerous foreign countries.”
It's quite ridiculous because I know a few juggalos myself, and they're nothing but nice, and caring. There may be a few bad apples, just like there is bad apples in a police force, but in the end, the current administration is at war with Freedom of Speech based on the merit if they don't like you or not. The next one is using Christianity as a tool to push their agenda against freedom of speech. Before talking about "protecting hate speech", we should talk about protecting free speech in general for our citizens first. How is freedom of speech implicated in the Juggalos investigation?
What happens to a person when they're arrested? What happens to a group of people when labeled as a gang?... It's easy to put two and two together.
|
On July 31 2018 10:59 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On July 31 2018 10:39 ShoCkeyy wrote:It's funny that xDaunt talks about protecting hate speech, but this very administration is denying the first amendment to it's very own U.S citizens because they're "weird". And this was a discussion we had before: Juggalos. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/12/fbi-documents-detail-gang-investigation-juggalos-f/By labeling them as a Gang, along with MS-13, their rights are easily being eroded away because they're "different". “Juggalos are in a type of gang war in California with the MS-13 gang and are holding their own against them,” an unidentified source told law enforcement, according to the 2008 memo. “Juggalos are known to be present in all 50 states and numerous foreign countries.”
It's quite ridiculous because I know a few juggalos myself, and they're nothing but nice, and caring. There may be a few bad apples, just like there is bad apples in a police force, but in the end, the current administration is at war with Freedom of Speech based on the merit if they don't like you or not. The next one is using Christianity as a tool to push their agenda against freedom of speech. Before talking about "protecting hate speech", we should talk about protecting free speech in general for our citizens first. How is freedom of speech implicated in the Juggalos investigation? What happens to a person when they're arrested? What happens to a group of people when labeled as a gang?... It's easy to put two and two together.
Arresting someone for assault does not implicate free speech. Labeling a group as a gang because that group commits lots of assault or other crimes does not implicate free speech. Long story short, no one knows what you are adding.
|
On July 31 2018 11:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 10:59 ShoCkeyy wrote:On July 31 2018 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On July 31 2018 10:39 ShoCkeyy wrote:It's funny that xDaunt talks about protecting hate speech, but this very administration is denying the first amendment to it's very own U.S citizens because they're "weird". And this was a discussion we had before: Juggalos. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/12/fbi-documents-detail-gang-investigation-juggalos-f/By labeling them as a Gang, along with MS-13, their rights are easily being eroded away because they're "different". “Juggalos are in a type of gang war in California with the MS-13 gang and are holding their own against them,” an unidentified source told law enforcement, according to the 2008 memo. “Juggalos are known to be present in all 50 states and numerous foreign countries.”
It's quite ridiculous because I know a few juggalos myself, and they're nothing but nice, and caring. There may be a few bad apples, just like there is bad apples in a police force, but in the end, the current administration is at war with Freedom of Speech based on the merit if they don't like you or not. The next one is using Christianity as a tool to push their agenda against freedom of speech. Before talking about "protecting hate speech", we should talk about protecting free speech in general for our citizens first. How is freedom of speech implicated in the Juggalos investigation? What happens to a person when they're arrested? What happens to a group of people when labeled as a gang?... It's easy to put two and two together. Arresting someone for assault does not implicate free speech. Labeling a group as a gang because that group commits lots of assault or other crimes does not implicate free speech. Long story short, no one knows what you are adding.
You know they recently had a march in DC because their first amendment is being eroded? I think you're the only one that doesn't know what I'm adding. It's obvious that once you label some one as a criminal, that's the mentality others have about them. Of course now MS-13 are animals, which if we're talking semantics, we're all animals... Eventually it'll be juggalos are animals, and then what? I'll have to watch multiple friends arrested for wearing face paint or having an ICP tattoo's in the future because now they're "gang related".
At what point will the next group be labeled as a gang? Trans?
|
5930 Posts
New satellite images seem to suggest North Korea is continuing ICBM production. Which isn't surprising, they never agreed to disarm and eliminate their nuclear weapons as per the Panmunjeom declaration.
With the previous dismantling of test launch sites, it seems North Korea is merely agreeing to do nothing provocative or even talk about nuclear weapons in much the same way Israel tiptoes around their nuclear weapons stockpile by not mentioning or talking about them.
|
I definitely don't have a good understanding of free speech laws. At what point does it become considered yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre? Or is my understanding off and the point of the yelling of fire in a theatre have more to do with property rather than personal safety?
I love the LotR, and think that like any great piece of art, is open to different interpretations- though there are some solid reasoning displayed here. When one of our Dems in the statehouse cast the deciding vote to clearcut a state forest containing Old Growth, his FB page was bombarded and I posted this clip (I love Treebeard lol):
+ Show Spoiler +
"A wizard should know better". And more of the corrupting influence theme.
|
United States43538 Posts
What I enjoyed was that Sessions specified that Christians felt oppressed, rather than were oppressed. That’s a pretty amusing moment of honesty.
|
At what point does it become considered yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre? Or is my understanding off and the point of the yelling of fire in a theatre have more to do with property rather than personal safety?
That's a misused idiom that has no significance today. The "fire in a theater" example has nothing to do with what people are arguing for/against, and on top of that, the case in which this remark was made originally was overturned 40 years ago.
Put it this way, the phrase itself is entirely legal. You can absolutely falsely shout "fire" in a theatre. Even if you endanger other people. It becomes actionable if it incites an actual riot, and the court can prove that you shouting "fire" was the reason for that riot.
What I enjoyed was that Sessions specified that Christians felt oppressed, rather than were oppressed. That’s a pretty amusing moment of honesty.
Or a disgusting display of idiocy, because lets face it, most of the laws that we find retarded on TL are based on someone "feeling" something ("damn mexicans taking all dem jobs!!1" even though the US is at full employment). Or, based on a fiction novel written 2000 years ago (marriage can only be between man and woman, jesus said so!!1"), which makes it no less retarded.
|
On July 31 2018 12:02 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +At what point does it become considered yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre? Or is my understanding off and the point of the yelling of fire in a theatre have more to do with property rather than personal safety?
That's a misused idiom that has no significance today. The "fire in a theater" example has nothing to do with what people are arguing for/against, and on top of that, the case in which this remark was made originally was overturned 40 years ago. Put it this way, the phrase itself is entirely legal. You can absolutely falsely shout "fire" in a theatre. Even if you endanger other people. It becomes actionable if it incites an actual riot, and the court can prove that you shouting "fire" was the reason for that riot.
Thanks, like I say, not something I have a good understanding of. So then, what about these white nationalist demonstrations/rallies that cause large fights (though maybe they aren't considered riots)? Doesn't this have a similar effect? People have been hurt, and in some cases killed. Or is the concern about property (storefront windows and looting etc) rather than personal safety?
|
On July 31 2018 12:06 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 12:02 m4ini wrote:At what point does it become considered yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre? Or is my understanding off and the point of the yelling of fire in a theatre have more to do with property rather than personal safety?
That's a misused idiom that has no significance today. The "fire in a theater" example has nothing to do with what people are arguing for/against, and on top of that, the case in which this remark was made originally was overturned 40 years ago. Put it this way, the phrase itself is entirely legal. You can absolutely falsely shout "fire" in a theatre. Even if you endanger other people. It becomes actionable if it incites an actual riot, and the court can prove that you shouting "fire" was the reason for that riot. Thanks, like I say, not something I have a good understanding of. So then, what about these white nationalist demonstrations/rallies that cause large fights (though maybe they aren't considered riots)? Doesn't this have a similar effect? People have been hurt, and in some cases killed.
They also are protected. I'm assuming you're hinting at things like Charlottesville, for example.
The law states that, to be actionable, it must lead to "imminent lawless action". That means literal incitement. As in, for example, "i'm encouraging you to kill somebody" - not just saying (or "being") something that angers someone.
edit:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-protests-speech-factbox/factbox-when-can-free-speech-be-restricted-in-the-united-states-idUSKCN1AU2E0
That puts it in terms that laymen can understand (including me), in regards to neo-nazis at least.
|
On July 31 2018 10:29 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 10:11 xDaunt wrote:On July 31 2018 10:07 hunts wrote:On July 31 2018 10:04 xDaunt wrote:On July 31 2018 09:53 hunts wrote:On July 31 2018 09:48 xDaunt wrote:On July 31 2018 09:45 hunts wrote:On July 31 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 31 2018 08:37 Simberto wrote:On July 31 2018 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Just betting that enough citizens don't, or will agree enough, I think.
This was like Trump leaking the Cohen thing and nobody realizing they were failing to meet a basic journalistic standard on anonymity or how ridiculous their speculation on who they talked to was. I feel like this is the logical conclusion of "religious liberty", US-style. It is, and never was, about actual religious liberty. It was always about the right to be an asshole because you claim that the bible tells you to. US "religious liberty" is about giving christians additional rights. They are not even subtle in the way that they only see christianity as a religion that deserves that liberty. And it is never about the liberty to be a christian and not be discriminated against based on that, because that is not something that is actually happening. It is always about the liberty to be a christian and discriminate against other people due to that. But of course pushing a fundamentalist christian agenda works a lot better if you call it "religious liberty" and not "christian fascism" In the words of the immortal Simon Phoenix: “You can’t take away people’s right to be assholes.” Actually yes you can, but your ilk are fighting very hard to remain bigoted assholes for literally no sane reason. First Amendment rights and equal protection under the law — which is not a one-way street — certainly qualify as sane reasons. They don't once you take about 5 seconds to realize that hate speech is not protect and that you cannot deny service to someone based on their gender race sexual orientation or religion. Furthermore If this is really what you want you will find yourself quite sad when all of the non christian, gay, and immigrant doctors lawyers bankers and I nvestors decide to say fuck you to the bigoted christian assholes and deny you service for what you are. Actually, hate speech is protected. You may want to check out what the law actually is before making such bold, vitriolic proclamations. so you want to argue that hate speech doesn't fall under dangerous speech or fighting words? Or would you like to argue that a business is a person and that their rights supersede the rights to not be discriminated against? Either way your argument is flawed and you would be better off discussing it with someone who also likes being a bigot to everyone except for white christian straight men, because it won't fly with anyone else. I don’t need to argue to anything. I can, and did, simply tell you what the law is. Your ignorance on these points isn’t surprising. As I have taken great delight in pointing out over the years, people with your views are notorious trampling all over the law in pursuit of perceived “just” ends. I'm very unconvinced that I'm the ignorant one here, given your posting history in this thread. But since you have provided no evidence, I'm going to go with this is another xdaunt shitshow of "no you misunderstand me lol." So I'm done with this.
This is a pretty irrational response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
