- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 48,281
- Reaction score
- 25,273
- Location
- Western NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]
I never said anti-discrimination laws were constitutional or not; what I am saying is that it's a different argument than the Duck Dynasty "free speech" one.
Freedom of religion is not freedom to discriminate as a business, according to the law. And you still have yet to tell me what organization has been silenced from speaking out against homosexuality by GLAAD and the ACLU.
So, in other words, you want to take away GLAAD's free speech rights?
Yeah, because when I think of a party that protects people's rights, I think of the Republicans. :roll:
I don't think either party has a monopoly on defending rights.
In the First Amendment Kobie the very first thing mention is the freedom of religion. That means you have the right to practice a faith or no faith. When a person practices a faith it becomes an expression of who they are. Expression is a form of speech which is mentioned as another right after freedom of religion. To force a person to provide a service that violates an expression of who they are is unconstitutional.
I never said anti-discrimination laws were constitutional or not; what I am saying is that it's a different argument than the Duck Dynasty "free speech" one.
Freedom of religion is not freedom to discriminate as a business, according to the law. And you still have yet to tell me what organization has been silenced from speaking out against homosexuality by GLAAD and the ACLU.
Activists who are nothing more than bullies that promote the violation of another's rights to promote their own agenda need to be stopped.
So, in other words, you want to take away GLAAD's free speech rights?
And as soon as Harry Reid is no longer running the Senate and a Republican who takes the Constitution seriously takes up residency on Pennsylvania Avenue, the rights of all will be protected.
Yeah, because when I think of a party that protects people's rights, I think of the Republicans. :roll:
I don't think either party has a monopoly on defending rights.
Last edited: