Thank you, Quazi!
Ok, let's flip that philosophy. I do not want to "ban" homosexuality. People should be free to express their sexual desires for the same sex if they choose to. But they should be prepared for the societal consequence of a business owner not wanting to hire homosexuals.
I do not want to "ban" abortion either. Women can maintain their "freedom" to have an abortion, but how about we punish them afterwards? Ya know, making them deal with the "repurcussions that follow". If you want to have an abortion, that is your right......however, expect to live with the consequences of your actions....there is a price to pay.
See how your ideology works? lol...it's absurd. I am simply choosing to use YOUR LOGIC against you.
They weren't attempting to curb his speech, but to punish him for his speech? lol... The Supreme Court has decided, more than once, that that is the same thing. Punishing speech is literally CURBING speech. You liberals and your double standards. What happened in liberals' cognitive development?
From the ashes.
When you sell out your values in the name of politics, the faux outrage thing looks...well..sad...
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
“Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher
For the record I would most likey not vote for Emanuel
It took a constitutional amendment to ban the recreational drug alcohol (and another to restore it), yet merely adding something to a "controlled and dangerous" sunstances list now makes marijuana, heroine, cocaine, meth, ecstasy and bath salts illegal nationwide. Gambling is banned in some state, legal in others and only allowed by the state in others - just like SSM yet that "freedom" of states is OK since the "loud and proud" don't seem to mind that yet. Prostitution as a voluntary transaction between consenting adults harms nobody yet is taboo, mainly based on religious objections, just as SSM and polygamy are. I am amazed that "principle" only seems to be an issue for the "loud and proud" SOMETIMES.
Personal feelings of the majority are not INVALID simply because a minority CLAIMS to be a victim for not being allowed to "do their thing" UNLESS that "thing" is a constitutional right. Note that the 14th amendment did NOT make racial/gender/age restrictive voting laws invalid, so why should it make the "only TWO of DIFFERENT genders" being the "correct" legal definition of a STATE marriage contract invalid?
Last edited by ttwtt78640; 08-01-12 at 11:58 AM.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman