I don’t know if my comment at NYT will pass the censor.
This is my response to a fellow Canuck’s comment justifying violence in response to “harmful” speech...
You might do well to remember another old saying.
“Sticks and stones might break your bones but words will never hurt you.”
If someone’s speech is used as a justification by you to become violent
then it is you that is the problem, not free speech.
Balance your motions with your rationality.
Respond like an adult, not react like a child.
The Left can’t deal with reality.
Declining to provide a wedding cake for two males or two women who want to get married is not discrimination.
If the same couple simply wanted to buy something already made, they could. I’d suggest the owner would probably make them a birthday cake or a celebratory cake for a work related, or group related event.
It is just the idea of making a cake for an event the owner doesn’t support, that causes him/her to decline to provide a special cake for that event.
It is therefore the event the provider objects to. It’s not necessarily the people, since other services would be gladly provided.
Of course the left can’t allow ANYONE to object to anything they endorse on penalty of going to the government to force their lifestyle on everyone.
Sorry, that’s not how life works. I can’t force you to celebrate straightness, and you can’t force me to celebrate homosexuality.
Remember, I can’t force you to celebrate anything. It is your choice.
The cake issue is my choice.
Understand Lefties?
While we’re on this subject, lets go one step further.
As mentioned above, an owner not willing to provide a wedding cake to celebrate a homosexual wedding, does not discriminate if they just want to buy a normal cake or pastries.
Despite this, the Left is outraged that people refuse to provide a wedding cake.
Contrast this with Sarah Sanders, who was denied any service simple based on her family wanting to eat.
Did Sarah ask for the establishment to make them something special to celebrate some Conservative event? No.
Sarah and family wanted to eat. REFUSED
Homosexual couple wants to buy some everyday pastries: ALLOWED
So who is the real offender here?
Once again, the Left is guilty of what they accuse others of, and those they accuse are not.
We see this over and over and over...
Coming from the side that weaponized the Commerce Clause, that’s really rich.
Pssst... don’t tell Fatso Kagan that we’ve weaponized the 2nd Amendment. :>)
“justify unlimited campaign spending, discrimination against gay couples and attacks on the regulation of tobacco, pharmaceuticals and guns.”
If someone repeats this line with me, I’m going to punch them in the throat.
What are these people smoking ?
Your leftist arguments became so incredibly pathetic, that’s how.
Liberals now openly oppose free speech, using preposterously militant language. Kagan and Sotomayor have penned perhaps the most retarded nonsense ever to come from a Supreme Court.
Elana Kagen is dumb as a toad. Anything that doesn’t fit the straightjacket of liberal speech is to be considered “weaponized”.
When is the last time a Democrat president nominated a “leaning” conservative?
Never.
So why does the Left / New York Times get their panties in a wad when a Republican gets to nominate a justice nominated by a previous Republican?
“Once a defense of the powerless, the First Amendment over the last hundred years has mainly become a weapon of the powerful,” she wrote. “Legally, what was, toward the beginning of the 20th century, a shield for radicals, artists and activists, socialists and pacifists, the excluded and the dispossessed, has become a sword for authoritarians, racists and misogynists, Nazis and Klansmen, pornographers and corporations buying elections.”
What a load of PURE CRAP!!. Look at Hollywood. Look at ANTIFA. Look at restaurants throwing out people of the "wrong" persuasion. Typical bullshit. Accuse the other side of what your side is actually doing.
Note to the NYTimes: Well at least it’s an actual Constitutional amendment and not the Liberals so-called “right to privacy” from which they constructed the “right” to an abortion - neither one written in the Constitution.
I love it when the New York Times and other organizations that work in free speech and free press begin lecturing us about the evils of such things and tell us there should be limits on it.
Maybe we could get vegan restaurants to advertise for steakhouses since it doesn’t violate the First Amendment.
Nothing has changed with respect to the First Amendment - it was always a bulwark against oppression. What has changed is that the feminist Left has become the oppressor. No wonder they don't like it.
This NYT piece is Kaka.