The purpose of free speech is to allow people to dissent from their government to call out actual abuses by corporations to campaign for changes in their situation. Allowing free speech does mean allowing certain things you might consider unseemly, but it should not be used an excuse to destroy people's reputations or livelihoods because you disagree with their political views.What is the purpose of the right to free speech, to protest?
The situations are not comparable. I would say the incidents we have seen are more comparable to the Paula Deen situation and, in case you are wondering, I do feel the same way about her treatment as I do about these cases.Besides, I know you cannot agree with your own statement because I can't imagine you defending the right of a white supremacist to spout his views without consequence and serve without protest in a position in the public eye.
I am not suggesting anyone shut up. They can criticize people and they can challenge their views, but that is different from threatening boycotts and waging campaigns against someone for having the wrong opinion. Were he running for public office that would mean something, but business is different. You start shutting people out of employment opportunities for having the wrong political opinion, even when it is not openly expressed, then you are subjecting all businesses to a litmus test where a person's ability to become employed is directly tied to whether they have the right political views. I do not agree with that sort of situation and neither should you.It would be easier to defend your position if you just admitted the obvious and you just want the gay to shut up.
A culture that is changed through threats and intimidation is not a free culture at all.That is of course the purpose of public protests - change the culture, assign a cost to holding positions opposed by the "mob."
Again, not the same thing. What we are talking about here would be the Supreme Court decreeing from on high, with no meaningful accountability or oversight for their decision, a definition of marriage that directly runs afoul of the core religious beliefs of nearly half the country. There many things I can see happeningBesides, what I expect will happen if the SC 'invents' a requirement that states recognize gay marriages performed in other states like states recognize all other marriages is about what happened when the military began allowing gays to serve openly.
I am fine with discrimination being illegal with religious exemptions, but it is not really about discrimination. A person is being asked to do something that conflicts with a core religious belief. People should be able to say "that's against my religion" when asked to perform a task without being sued and their livelihood destroyed as a result. Restaurants not serving people who are gay or employers firing people for being gay is one thing, but we are talking about making someone bake and decorate a cake for a ceremony celebrating something that goes against a person's religion.Of course not. This is America, and that's not how we do things. Funny how it's "state sovereignty" when someone wants to do what Christians want, but it's not state sovereignty when a state wants to make discrimination on the basis of sexuality illegal. (which is the issue in these bakery cases)
Explicitly restricting legal marriages only to those who can procreate would be invasive. Restricting legal marriage to a male and female couple is clear and consistent. The special arrangements involved in marriage incentivize a committed relationship, which is more conducive to procreation. Mind you, this has been explicitly stated in Supreme Court rulings as a basis for the special status of legal marriage. They would not be on unsound legal grounds to make that argument. It would also not be unsound scientifically as committed sexual relationships are generally viewed, even in nature, as about obtaining offspring.If procreation is a compelling state interest, then infertile couples and elderly couples should have marriages annulled, right? Or couples who simply do not wish to have children? No, that would be silly.
People often have contracts with multiple parties at the same time or separately. Amending existing contracts to accommodate new contracts is also not abnormal. The argument would have to be really good.Number of persons in a contract.
Void for vagueness | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute"It's hard to define" is not how these constitutional arguments work.