- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 57,470
- Reaction score
- 14,587
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
That's right. Bow down.
this makes 0 sense.
That's right. Bow down.
yet people have a right in this country to do so. we do not live in a communist country or a dictatorship. we live in a country where everyone is able to express themselves as they see fit. they should not be terrorized for it.
if you approve of this type of behavior then shame on you.
He wasn't forced out by a court, and I think you need to go back and read the 1st amendment.
Shame on you. I have a right to express my disapproval of this CEO, who are you to take that away from me?
this makes 0 sense.
i have no clue about what you are talking about. maybe if you hadn't hacked my post apart this would make more sense to you, but from what i have seen you don't seem to read the whole post.You've admitted defeat. The activists pwn. You are now a subject. You must do as we say, or we will destroy you.
where did i say that ol yea i didn't. strawman.
How come you only care about his freedom of speech and not mine, then?
He expressed his belief, and his customers expressed their disapproval. The company made the business decision to have him step down.
No part of this violates the first amendment.
yet people have a right in this country to do so. we do not live in a communist country or a dictatorship. we live in a country where everyone is able to express themselves as they see fit. they should not be terrorized for it.
if you approve of this type of behavior then shame on you.
Not at all. The policy of destroying anyone who opposed their view was not adopted until after they lost. Using donation lists and circulating them among radicals who then staged events designed to destroy businesses is definitely after the fact.
Suggesting otherwise is where obtuse accurately fits
i have no clue about what you are talking about.
It doesn't matter the activist are extreme. they will destroy any business or person that doesn't agree with them.
In an interview recently he was asked if he would do it again, and dodged the question.
It's generally bad business to align yourself against marriage equality these days.
again i didn't say any of that. strawman.
so what if they disapproved. there is always a % that will disapprove of something. they can get over it.
the more businesses stand up and people stand up to them the less rail roading they will do.
the problem is just encourages them and their behavior.
sure trying to stifle and or punish someone for speaking their personal opinion is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
we are not a thought police state the last time i checked.
A common theme seems to be that if he had never done the action of donating he'd still be CEO, and that's ok. In other words: If he had kept his views to himself, and not had the audacity to expose or support his own views, we'd let him stay.
Oh, isn't that ever so tolerant. :roll:
So what? I believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. Maybe you don't. Maybe some COE's do and some don't. I don't think that the ones that disagree with me should be forced out of their jobs. These people need to learn tolerance, instead of their militant, shove their opinion down your throat strategy. They need to respect the views of others, and need to respect the freedoms we all should enjoy, not just those that want to destroy other opinions.
This also had happened throughout history. Do you think any major societal change was without this sort of stuff? this is tame compared to what happened during the protestant revolution.
So what? I believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. Maybe you don't. Maybe some COE's do and some don't. I don't think that the ones that disagree with me should be forced out of their jobs. These people need to learn tolerance, instead of their militant, shove their opinion down your throat strategy. They need to respect the views of others, and need to respect the freedoms we all should enjoy, not just those that want to destroy other opinions.
Cue the people who start crying about "freedom of speech" without understanding what it means.
So what? I believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. Maybe you don't. Maybe some COE's do and some don't. I don't think that the ones that disagree with me should be forced out of their jobs. These people need to learn tolerance, instead of their militant, shove their opinion down your throat strategy. They need to respect the views of others, and need to respect the freedoms we all should enjoy, not just those that want to destroy other opinions.
Yes, I understand. And the world is still searching for Nazi guards.
I don't see those historical issues as being equivalent to the issue here.
Where does the line get drawn? Why not look at political party donations as a qualifier? How about religious beliefs?
The fact is, this matter, and the desire for revenge that is being exposed by it, is setting a precedent that is very dangerous.
Yes, I understand. And the world is still searching for Nazi guards.
I don't see those historical issues as being equivalent to the issue here.
Where does the line get drawn? Why not look at political party donations as a qualifier? How about religious beliefs?
The fact is, this matter, and the desire for revenge that is being exposed by it, is setting a precedent that is very dangerous.
Yes, I understand. And the world is still searching for Nazi guards.
I don't see those historical issues as being equivalent to the issue here.
Where does the line get drawn? Why not look at political party donations as a qualifier? How about religious beliefs?
The fact is, this matter, and the desire for revenge that is being exposed by it, is setting a precedent that is very dangerous.
Baloney. Political figures are accountable to their constituency for their political beliefs and endorsements all the time.
Yes, they are. But what does a political figure have to do with this issue?