Conservatives: do you support Equal Opportunity for all?

Personal attacks aside (against the forum rules as I am sure you are aware) — you are advocating that people be free to say or do whatever they like but also be free from allowing financial penalties from others, in your example you used an employer creating a hostile work environment for their employees and then terminating them — should people not be allowed to boycott? Not be allowed to do business elsewhere? Should people not be able to elect ordinances to protect workers from such harassment? You believe it is free speech to allow this torment — I believe it is my free speech to condemn hate and cruelty by any means necessary aside from physical force — including bankruptcy.

Sorry if you don’t agree or like it — but that’s the free speech you say you are for, or does it suddenly have limits?

 

No, in my example I used an employer saying an offhanded remark (might not even have been in the workplace) and then that being used as the primary piece of evidence against him to accuse him of something else.

That something else was doing something "for the wrong reasons".
Not that it's physically possible to look inside his brain and see what those reasons actually were.

The law being proposed in the OP would easily end up punishing people for things typed on Twitter.

It would enable judges and juries to turn free speech into "evidence" prima facta of crimes.

 

Please have the integrity — if you can find some — to quote my posts in their entirety and respond to the points as addressed.


Evidence is evidence, no matter where it is found.

 

Which becomes tantamount to criminalizing free speech.

A member of the KKK who says terrible things about Blacks should be able to fire a Black person in the workplace without any questions, unless there was clear proof that it was due to discrimination.
However, with "anti-discrimination" laws like the ones being proposed in the OP, there will probably most likely not be justice in this situation.

I'm against giving judges and juries free reign to punish people for free speech.
They can do that anyway, but this law makes it so much easier for them to do, almost directs them to do it.

 

The Social Left feigns ignorance but knows exactly what their intended laws will do.

That's why I stated in another post it's EVIL, before a mod deleted it.

Evil and anti-business.

 

They are not being prevented from speaking whatever they like. However their speech may be used against them — or do you believe the SCOTUS should revisit case law as settled by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436?

 

The speech isn't just being used against them. Their personal opinions are being used as the primary reason to assume they are guilty, guilty of doing something that is otherwise routine in the normal course of running a business.

You can obviously see this but you're dancing around it.

(I think it's because you gleefully don't care)

 

Restricting and punishing free speech is a dream for the Left.

 

If someone screams I hate white people and then goes and stabs a white person in the middle of Times Square, should their previous remarks be used against them?

 

I think we should encourage everyone to identify themselves as the bigot they are

 

They should not automatically be convicted of a hate crime, no.

And just helps go to show how ridiculous the concept of a "hate crime" is.

 

Its called motive.
Often used in criminal law and sometimes used in civil law.

I’m sure you have heard of it?

I never mentioned hate crime but ok.


Will you coordinate with our justice system to advise them that motive is no longer necessary or should I? Brilliant argument you are making so far.

 

You would be punishing people for a motive that is no more than a personal opinion.
And very likely there would be little to no evidence of the crime other than motive, so essentially motive would turn into the only evidence used to show that a crime had been committed.
Thus, this law effectively criminalizes personal opinion conveyed through free speech.

There's very little else this law would actually do.

 

What Foxfyre says here seems like common sense to me. I cannot understand how anyone, even the most ardent Leftist or Rightist, could disagree.

 

Alas, disagree some do though. The same people who approve of getting in the face of the kid wearing the MAGA hat, who approve confronting and driving people out of restaurants or theaters or whatever because they aren't liberal Democrats, who think it okay to gang up on and try to get somebody fired or ruin them financially because they hold a 'wrong' opinion, who approve of college kids rioting or threatening to riot to keep somebody expressing the 'wrong' ideology from speaking on campus, who would block people coming to attend a rally, and in all these cases scream SHAME SHAME SHAME or much worse slurs and accusations. . .

. . .those same people will be among those who demand that the baker or florist or wedding singer or whomever be forced to make a product for or cater or deliver to or set up a product or service for an activity or event for something THEY approve up even as they might protest that person doing the same for somebody they loathe. . .

And they cannot see how truly evil and convoluted and unjust and totalitarian their attitude and behavior is. They cannot see how dishonest and hateful and intolerant and dangerous to liberty they are.

When equal opportunity and freedom of choice is only allowed those who believe,think, and speak as THEY do, who share THEIR point of few, who reject what THEY reject, they are no different than and no better than those who would discriminate against or deny basic rights to people based on race, ethnicity, religion.

 

Theyre commies, what do you expect?

 

You people act like orientation would be the first and only protected group.

I haven’t seen any of you upset that people cannot discriminate against Christians because of their religion, or whites because of their race — both are federally protected groups. The line — for some reason — is drawn at gay people.

Y’all need a new argument that isn’t so contradictory

 

Okay I've tried but I cannot see how your comment here in any way applies to my argument that you quoted.

 

Most of the people that want open discrimination against gay people or gay couples are perfectly fine with Christians remaining a protected class — as most of them are evangelicals. It’s absurd to scream it’s unjust to allow orientation as a protected class on the basis of your argument while ignoring the current protected classes.

 

That certainly is not what I argued, nor was I referring to specifically sexual orientation in my post. And Christians are not a protected class.

 

Of course they are. Look up every single non-discrimination ordinance. They all include religious preference or belief.

 

You do know that religious preference or belief can be any or all of the 4200 religions known to exist in the world. Christians are not singled out for special protection within that.

 

Of course Christians should be treated like everyone else. So should straight people, and toxically-masculine males.

A feminist women's refuge should absolutely have the right to hire whomever they please -- and if that's only women, with a high proportion of gay women, fine and good. An Orthodox Jewish school should absolutely have the right to hire Orthodox Jews only to teach their children. A Palestinian Advocacy group should absolutely have the right not to hire people who sympathyze with those occupying Palestinian land. Louis Farrakhan the Jew-hater and his leftwing and liberal friends should absolutely have the right to hire only Jew-haters for their joint political enterprises. A pacifist publication should certainly be able to refuse to hire a decorated combat veteran who thinks pacifists are weak fools.

In the old days, we all lived in tribes, we were all alike, we believed alike. As society got larger, we had to deal with Difference. In big empires, difference was accommodated, so long as the Ruler's religion was acknowledged as the supreme one and everyone paid their taxes. In more compact nation-states, the priests saw to it that heretics were burned. But as we evolved, we've worked out better ways to rub along together. And it turns out, fortuitously, that homogeneous static societies don't do as well as fractious, disputative, argumentative societies, where new ideas -- good ones and bad ones -- are not crushed by law.

And, by the way, although right now it's the Left who are leading the charge for more state control and punishment of Thoughtcrime, when I was young, it was Communists and other lefties who were being fired from their jobs, or forced to sign 'loyalty oaths', with the Right cheering it on. So let's not have too much self-righteousness here from today's victims.

 

I agree with this.