Wait. How is it that a corporation is exercising First Amendment rights by secretly giving money to a candidate for elected office, but an individual is not exercising First Amendment rights by publicly refusing to buy stuff in order to affect political decisions?
"Does the state propose to force people to buy the shit they don't want to buy?
That's really only a very small leap away from forcing women to undergo medical procedures and processes against their will, which is absolutely where they're at right now.
does that mean if i, for example, made a public statement about how i will not buy cakes from a bakery that discriminates against gay people, the bakery can sue me for choosing not to buy their cakes? whiskey tango foxtrot?
Yet, if you refuse to sell those same cakes to a gay couple, exercising the Supreme Court’s current notion of free exercise of religion, that would be protected by the very same First Amendment that would not protect your refusal to buy one.
C'mon, now. I get grumpy with friends who tell me I *need* to watch something that's more than a minute long. So trust that I wouldn't inflict something like this on someone without good reason.
Also, it's Philosophy Tube. It's quality stuff and you might just learn something. It's not like I'm hurling Flat Earth stuff your way.
So this means that the 'economic activity' of writing unlimited checks to politicians in the guise of a corporation is ALSO NOT free speech?
I'd love to ask those judges how boycotts are different.
I was a speech-language pathologist, got my education in Texas. If I had stayed there and worked as a contractor in a SNF, I would have been required to sign one of those 'loyalty to Israel' pledges.
The 1st Amendment supports odious speech. Pretending the speech is not odious is neither factual nor helpful.
"boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS)" movement that seeks to use economic pressure to change Israel's policy toward Palestinians.
BDS seeks to end the state of Israel, not to push Israel into borders and policies that would enable a 2-state solution nor support a pluralistic democratic union, but advocates for the destruction of Israel.
Which is legit speech, but odious.
It is possible to oppose collective punishment for Israelis and Palestinians. BDS takes the argument that the larger current wrong supports efforts towards greater future evil.
It's only a problem when they want to ban abortion, gay rights, or anything else progressive. Because racism, back-alley abortions and gay-bashing are "deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions."
Yes. People who wouldn't think they have a trace of bigotry in their bones, somehow manage to drift easily enough into all the tropes about Jews controlling governments with their money. "But that's different!" they insist, and then try to explain how what they believe is Jew-money controlling world governments but in a completely different way. If what you believe lines up well enough with Henry Ford ravings that you have trouble explaining the difference, perhaps you're simply wrong.
Nah, I won't say it.
The Right needs to control everything, from your vagina to your pocketbook.
Wait. How is it that a corporation is exercising First Amendment rights by secretly giving money to a candidate for elected office, but an individual is not exercising First Amendment rights by publicly refusing to buy stuff in order to affect political decisions?
"Does the state propose to force people to buy the shit they don't want to buy?
That's really only a very small leap away from forcing women to undergo medical procedures and processes against their will, which is absolutely where they're at right now.
does that mean if i, for example, made a public statement about how i will not buy cakes from a bakery that discriminates against gay people, the bakery can sue me for choosing not to buy their cakes? whiskey tango foxtrot?
sooo - where does that leave people who sell freedom fries instead of french fries? and how is this 'small government'?
If money is speech, then withholding money is speech too. How hard is that?
Yet, if you refuse to sell those same cakes to a gay couple, exercising the Supreme Court’s current notion of free exercise of religion, that would be protected by the very same First Amendment that would not protect your refusal to buy one.
the world is mad
C'mon, now. I get grumpy with friends who tell me I *need* to watch something that's more than a minute long. So trust that I wouldn't inflict something like this on someone without good reason.
Also, it's Philosophy Tube. It's quality stuff and you might just learn something. It's not like I'm hurling Flat Earth stuff your way.
So this means that the 'economic activity' of writing unlimited checks to politicians in the guise of a corporation is ALSO NOT free speech?
I'd love to ask those judges how boycotts are different.
I was a speech-language pathologist, got my education in Texas. If I had stayed there and worked as a contractor in a SNF, I would have been required to sign one of those 'loyalty to Israel' pledges.
Sure glad I ran back to CA.
Yes this is a garbage ruling.
The 1st Amendment supports odious speech. Pretending the speech is not odious is neither factual nor helpful.
"boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS)" movement that seeks to use economic pressure to change Israel's policy toward Palestinians.
BDS seeks to end the state of Israel, not to push Israel into borders and policies that would enable a 2-state solution nor support a pluralistic democratic union, but advocates for the destruction of Israel.
Which is legit speech, but odious.
It is possible to oppose collective punishment for Israelis and Palestinians. BDS takes the argument that the larger current wrong supports efforts towards greater future evil.
It's only a problem when they want to ban abortion, gay rights, or anything else progressive. Because racism, back-alley abortions and gay-bashing are "deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions."
We really need to take another look at this lifetime appointment concept, cause it doesn't seem to be working out the way we thought.
Yes. People who wouldn't think they have a trace of bigotry in their bones, somehow manage to drift easily enough into all the tropes about Jews controlling governments with their money. "But that's different!" they insist, and then try to explain how what they believe is Jew-money controlling world governments but in a completely different way. If what you believe lines up well enough with Henry Ford ravings that you have trouble explaining the difference, perhaps you're simply wrong.
I can live with that.