hence, the value of free speech over simple attempts to suppress it. because if we follow the principle of free speech, we rob Phil of any attempt to claim a commercial, moral, and strategic victory here; make him look like an ass; avoid legitimizing the perception that groups like glaad are trying to blur the lines between acceptance and tolerance (a criticism that seems very legitimate) and waging a war on traditional values; and can possibly promote an idea, while clearly trending in that direction, hasn't reached a clear social consensus
No, something being irrelevant means it has no bearing on any point I raised . Not that it's inconvenient for me. You lacking the ability to understand the very simple reason why it's irrelevant doesn't change that and isn't my problemBecause it leads to an inconvenient place for you politically.
No **** sherlock, which is why I pointed out the concept of free speech was different than constitutional 1st amendment protection. Or does the difference between what is legal and what should be done escape you like most other simple concepts?A&E is not bound by any law to put Phil Robertson on TV.
I'm still lost on how raising irrelevant points addresses anything in my argumentEnd of story. They don't have to do that, and are well within their rights to say no.
Liberals - Punish the Successful, Reward the Unsuccessful
Liberals - Tax, Borrow, Spend, and Give Free Stuff
Obama's legacy - National Debt / Credit Downgrade / Obamacare Failure / Economic Failure / Foreign Policy Failure / Liar of the Year Award / The Rise of ISIS