Democrats win Iowa State House special election

[Franzl]

Looks like we have a new forum idiot.

[Alcon]

I think he's being polite and not vitriolic, I don't agree with him and I think his argument is often advanced by the bigoted but we need to give him a chance...at least from what I read in this topic.

[SenatorShadowLands]

Your Church opposes gay marriage. Gay marriage is legalized in your state. So your church gets labeled a "hate" group and shut down. Maybe you think you're God and don't care about the Church but I'd say that negatively affects the people who attend and work at that Church.

You personally oppose gay marriage and get sued by some tool as a hate criminal for "hurting their feelings" and YOU have to pay damages.

Please cite even a single incident of either of these events ever happening please.

I'd certainly say Patricia Mauceri, who was fired from her acting job this morning because she wouldn't say God created gays as they are, is feeling an adverse effect of the promotion of gay "marriage." Given she wasn't sued but as I said before, her freedom of speech has certainly been violated.

She was fired from her acting job (according to Google and her publicist) because she refused to play a character who approved of gays...

...so they found someone else to play that character instead.  No, that's not Freedom of Speech.  The government was not involved in any way, so it can't be.

And you're arguing that this is an inevitable slippery slope toward enforcing that everyone must believe that homosexuality is OK...?

She played this character for a number of years from my understanding. It's not like it was some new gig she refused. She even tried to negotiate with the producers so she could be friendly toward the gay character, she simply wouldn't utter the line that God created gays to be gay and was fired.

So let me get this straight, as long as you aren't Congress (since they are the only ones explicitly mentioned by the first amendment) then in your opinion you can restrict freedom of speech to your hearts' content?

[SenatorShadowLands]

Looks like we have a new forum idiot.

I see, I'm an idiot because I'm not a wide eyed Obama zombie hiding behind the guise of being an "independent."

[5280]

Senator,

This forum has a lot of Democrats, you're gonna have to get used to it pretty soon just to let you know.  Other than that, it's good to see some debates going on here from both sides no matter how dumb/intelligent they're perceived.

Good luck!

[Alcon]

She played this character for a number of years from my understanding. It's not like it was some new gig she refused. She even tried to negotiate with the producers so she could be friendly toward the gay character, she simply wouldn't utter the line that God created gays to be gay and was fired.

So let me get this straight, as long as you aren't Congress (since they are the only ones explicitly mentioned by the first amendment) then in your opinion you can restrict freedom of speech to your hearts' content?

The U.S. Constitution does not apply to a private institution.  If you come into my business, I can kick you out for any reason -- maybe I think your shirt is ugly.  Is that reasonable?  No.  But it has nothing to do with Free Speech.  Maybe little-f/little-s free speech, sure.  But your assertion was:

Your Church opposes gay marriage. Gay marriage is legalized in your state. So your church gets labeled a "hate" group and shut down. Maybe you think you're God and don't care about the Church but I'd say that negatively affects the people who attend and work at that Church.

You're trying to prove a slippery slope about government enforcement against "hate groups" by taking a private economic decision.  If you are arguing that a cultural shift (which shows up through private cost-benefits decisions like that) will happen and the government will inevitably start to behave the way you're arguing, you need to prove that.  Because it didn't happen with race, so why sexual orientation?

Otherwise, it's like someone taking an example of an individual church denying membership to a sexually active gay person on the grounds of their lifestyle choice...would you use that to argue a slippery slope toward the prohibition of gayness?  What you're doing now makes no more sense than that.

(I do appreciate your civility, though, like I said you don't deserve to be treated as a troll.  But please don't take "this forum has a lot of Democrats" as an excuse to dismiss moral arguments.  For my part, I'm no wild-eyed Obama fan.  )

[Scam of God]

The irony of it all is that the authoritarian conservatives want the "freedom" to deny to others their liberty, initiating force against them. The double-irony is that most American 'individualists' are wont to go along with that.

[Alcon]

The irony of it all is that the authoritarian conservatives want the "freedom" to deny to others their liberty, initiating force against them. The double-irony is that most American 'individualists' are wont to go along with that.

Yea, because liberty is not at all defined in terms relating to human response...except when it is.  Like when you're advocating for expanding individualism.

booooring

[Lief 🗽]

So let me get this straight, as long as you aren't Congress (since they are the only ones explicitly mentioned by the first amendment) then in your opinion you can restrict freedom of speech to your hearts' content?

wtf?? Have you ever even read the constitution?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Alcon]

So let me get this straight, as long as you aren't Congress (since they are the only ones explicitly mentioned by the first amendment) then in your opinion you can restrict freedom of speech to your hearts' content?

wtf?? Have you ever even read the constitution?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's even more confusing to me because I never said anything about Congress, he was the one who brought it up.  So apparently he's read the Constitution, knows the "Congress" part and assumed I was alluding to that, and then...mocked it.

odd.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Apparently Lief (and Alcon) are unfamiliar with the fourteenth amendment, that the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly held prevents state and local governments from abridging the rights enumerated in the first amendment.

Do you need me to cite some of the major decisions?

Have your heard of the due process clause?

[Franzl]

Looks like we have a new forum idiot.

I see, I'm an idiot because I'm not a wide eyed Obama zombie hiding behind the guise of being an "independent."

Mental illness is frequently treatable.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Your Church opposes gay marriage. Gay marriage is legalized in your state. So your church gets labeled a "hate" group and shut down. Maybe you think you're God and don't care about the Church but I'd say that negatively affects the people who attend and work at that Church.

You personally oppose gay marriage and get sued by some tool as a hate criminal for "hurting their feelings" and YOU have to pay damages.

Please cite even a single incident of either of these events ever happening please.

I'd certainly say Patricia Mauceri, who was fired from her acting job this morning because she wouldn't say God created gays as they are, is feeling an adverse effect of the promotion of gay "marriage." Given she wasn't sued but as I said before, her freedom of speech has certainly been violated.

She was fired from her acting job (according to Google and her publicist) because she refused to play a character who approved of gays...

...so they found someone else to play that character instead.  No, that's not Freedom of Speech.  The government was not involved in any way, so it can't be.

And you're arguing that this is an inevitable slippery slope toward enforcing that everyone must believe that homosexuality is OK...?

She played this character for a number of years from my understanding. It's not like it was some new gig she refused. She even tried to negotiate with the producers so she could be friendly toward the gay character, she simply wouldn't utter the line that God created gays to be gay and was fired.

And that could've happened regardless of whether or not gay marriage was legal anywhere (and I'm assuming this was in California, where gay marriage is not legal currently.) So this is a total red herring. It has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage.

So let me get this straight, as long as you aren't Congress (since they are the only ones explicitly mentioned by the first amendment) then in your opinion you can restrict freedom of speech to your hearts' content?

Yes. Can Dave Leip ban people from this site? He is restricting free speech in doing so.

Apparently Lief (and Alcon) are unfamiliar with the fourteenth amendment, that the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly held prevents state and local governments from abridging the rights enumerated in the first amendment.

Do you need me to cite some of the major decisions?

Have your heard of the due process clause?

Another red herring. We're talking about a private institution here, not any state or local government.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I did a little research and found that in 2008 the Democrat candidate won 86% of the vote.

In the 2009 special election the Democrat candidate won 49% of the vote.

Hmm.

If that's what you want to brag about, you really have problems!

[Hash]

I did a little research and found that in 2008 the Democrat candidate won 86% of the vote.

With no Republican opponent...

wow Carl.

[Meeker]

I did a little research and found that in 2008 the Democrat candidate won 86% of the vote.

In the 2009 special election the Democrat candidate won 49% of the vote.

Hmm.

If that's what you want to brag about, you really have problems!

Holy shit CARL. There's no way you can possibly be this stupid without trying to be.

[Alcon]

Apparently Lief (and Alcon) are unfamiliar with the fourteenth amendment, that the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly held prevents state and local governments from abridging the rights enumerated in the first amendment.

I did not realize that a soap opera was a branch of state and local government.  Thank you for the correction!

(again, as far as I know, shadowlands is the one who brought up "Congress," I just said that the First Amendment does not apply to the actions of private institutions.)

[Badger]

I think he's being polite and not vitriolic,

I respectfully disagree.

C'mon people---quit feeding the troll.