Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't agree with anyone who threatens violence, but I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone on the right would oppose what's happening here. How many times have we heard that a business owner should be allowed to refuse service to anyone, and if people don't like it, they are free to boycott the business. Well, you got your wish. Why aren't you happy?
I think a lot of boycotts, left and right, are based on frivolous reasons. I still support the right to participate in whatever boycott you choose.
The harassment and character assassination of these pizza shop owners goes beyond a mere boycott though. I've seen their Facebook page and the onslaught of angry hateful profane comments directed at them. I can only imagine what the phone calls are like.
Boycott if you will. Encourage others to join your boycott, by all means. But mean-spirited harassment and threats are over the top.
Though I guess that's all you have when you're hundreds or thousands of miles away and your boycott is essentially meaningless, but someone said something publicly that you don't agree with.
He is right, so why should he concede. Rather, you are the one who should concede. You and all who share your perspective.
It's one thing to debate what should be. We can argue all day how the 1st Amendment should be interpreted and put into practical effect, and we can argue all day about if we should have anti-discrimination laws and what they should and should not do.
But was is, is. It's just plain ridiculous to argue against reality. I'm simply stating what the 1st Amendent IS - according to the Supreme Court. I'm simply stating what anti-discrimination laws ARE - according to the legislatures that have passed them and the courts that have enforced them.
You and informedconsent keep trying to insist that what you wish the 1st Amendment and anti-discrimination laws were is in fact what they are and in fact do. That's crazy.
It's hard to believe that in this day and age, anyone could be so naive as to not think there would be repercussions to the kind of comments they made.
So you think death threats, bullying, and harassing people out of business are an appropriate response to someone else's stated beliefs?
They had to close due to death threats and people arranging to burn down their business, all over an honest answer to a hypothetical question. I guess this is the "tolerant" left that I keep hearing about.
You're confusing yourself. The 3rd condition you're referencing is from Indiana's RFRA, not from the 1st Amendment. I already quoted to you the extent of, and the Constitutional standard governing, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (the Scalia quote).
Correct,the first amendment is much stronger.
The federal laws require a compelling interest and it's hard to argue that when the guy next store can meet the need.
Hobby Lobby is a closely-held corporation. The Indiana law is so broad as to include anyone. Apples and oranges.
Wrong. The Hobby Lobby case has been cited by some "legal eagles" as being relevant to this question (not the least of whom is Ann Coulter, a litigation attorney.
The federal laws require a compelling interest and it's hard to argue that when the guy next store can meet the need.
What? The federal RFRA was passed as a direct response to the Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith (which is the case I've been quoting Justice Scalia from). Congress specifically did it to give stronger religious protections than the 1st Amendment provides.
I started this thread 4 1/2 hours ago and their support has doubled since then.
In a total time of 22 hours, 8411 donors have given $236,916.
What's interesting in the way the two sides voice their opinion.
One side seeks to destroy the business as they have received death threats and people who suggest burning down their business - and of course the continuous name calling and intimidation.
The other side voices their opinion more quietly, but with their wallets.
It's one thing to debate what should be. We can argue all day how the 1st Amendment should be interpreted and put into practical effect, and we can argue all day about if we should have anti-discrimination laws and what they should and should not do.
But was is, is. It's just plain ridiculous to argue against reality. I'm simply stating what the 1st Amendent IS - according to the Supreme Court. I'm simply stating what anti-discrimination laws ARE - according to the legislatures that have passed them and the courts that have enforced them.
You and informedconsent keep trying to insist that what you wish the 1st Amendment and anti-discrimination laws were is in fact what they are and in fact do. That's crazy.
No, it is you that are insisting what you wish they were.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
