No need to apologize--I find your contrived denials intellectually lazy. I don't need to invent faux liberals, because they can be found all over--including on sites like this one. Your attempt to deny that they are an identifiable group that commonly disdains the First Amendment is about as convincing as claiming they don't commonly disdain the Second. When they are not busy attacking religious freedoms, or promoting restrictive speech codes, or lauding state public accommodations laws that insult the freedoms of association and expressive speech in the name of homosexual rights, so-called liberals are attacking the right to keep and bear arms. All you do by defending these intolerant, undemocratic people is suggest you are sympathetic to them. The true liberals in this country today are the people commonly called--inaccurately--"conservatives."
All you're doing is asserting that anyone who disagrees with your (far right wing) interpretation of the Constitution, which supposedly allows an unfettered 'right' to privately discriminate, has a disdain for the 1st Amendment, and is a "nasty, intolerant, little prigs." What's more likely is we disagree on the merits of various positions related to First Amendment rights and when they can be exercised on the public arena, such as by a business.
And the "liberal" position on the 2nd Amendment was pretty much the national position, including the position of noted "liberals" like Ronald Reagan, for most of this country's history. Now that the far right wing has interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that there are essentially NO legitimate curbs on the ability to keep and bear arms doesn't mean that any other view is illegitimate, just that it differs from your own.
It was the "conservatives" in my area of the country who opposed a Mosque being built, and who argued Islam isn't actually a religion and so deserves no 1st amendment protections. It's "conservatives" who are happy to make consensual sex between adults a felony if the "nasty intolerant little prigs" don't agree with that kind of sex. It's "conservatives" who want to impose their view of marriage on the rest of the country by Constitutionally prohibiting extending rights to same sex couples, etc. So there isn't any monopoly on "nasty intolerant little prigs" in any one side of the political aisle.
The many thousands of comments I have read by people who claim to be liberals have taught me to assume they are the very opposite, until they provide evidence they are not. As they reveal their views, they usually show my initial assumption about their true colors was correct. I have seen exceptions, but only seldom.
Yeah, OK, well, I also assume that "conservatives" are a bunch of white sheeted KKK sympathizers until proven otherwise. States rights is nearly always cover for racist and discriminatory policies. I have seen exceptions but only seldom....
See, this inventing stereotypes and attributing negative attributes indiscriminately to anyone with an opposing viewpoint is easy!!
I see someone printed the university's conduct code, as if the simple fact a state law or regulation existed were proof of its constitutionality. But thousands of such laws and regulations have been struck down as unconstitutional. I don't say this one is, but the Supreme Court protects the freedom of speech about as strongly as anything in the Constitution. Having a free country means letting people say hateful and repugnant things--in fact the Court has observed that it is exactly the most unpopular speech that calls for the greatest protection. In this country, we don't rush to the rescue every time some delicate flower points his finger and wails, through his tears, that the bad man said mean things that made him feel all icky. The world is not a kindergarten, however much faux liberals would like to make it one.
First of all, my original point was perhaps you should take the thing about conduct codes up with the person who posted them, or those who agreed they should apply in this case instead of throwing hand grenades in a drive by post that slurs all "liberals." I don't believe society should "ride to the rescue" every time an idiot racist opens his idiot, racist trap, but it's perfectly fine to publicly condemn such racism and for their to be serious consequences for uttering that kind of nonsense. I don't think they should be expelled, however. So it's possible to condemn racist chants, publicly shame those who participated, but support their 'right' to be idiot racists without the state supported university expelling them for their views. College is IMO a time when such views should be MOST tolerated.
And instead of having an honest debate, you decided to throw grenades.
