Why Liberals Hate Free Speech

[SassyIrishLass]

What the PC Police choose to ignore about freedom of speech/expression is what is implicit:

Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery. It goes against the very spirit of the idea.

Obviously.

I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking, and (perhaps most importantly) who agrees with them. I can't do that if they keep it hidden and allow their craziness to fester and grow and manifest in other ways.

Stop being afraid of words, folks. If you're so confident in your positions, you should welcome and encourage those words, take them head on, shine a nice, bright light on them.

Are you?
.

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

People are free to buy from a business if they choose, or choose not to.

Indeed.

A "massive boycott" was proposed against Chik-Fil-A. The company more than made up for any losses from the additional customers who bought their goods simply to show support for their right to hold a position.

The left's boycott of Chik Fil La propelled Chik Fil La to the America's favorite fast food. Talk about shooting yourself in the toe

 

[NYcarbineer]

What the PC Police choose to ignore about freedom of speech/expression is what is implicit:

Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery. It goes against the very spirit of the idea.

Obviously.

I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking, and (perhaps most importantly) who agrees with them. I can't do that if they keep it hidden and allow their craziness to fester and grow and manifest in other ways.

Stop being afraid of words, folks. If you're so confident in your positions, you should welcome and encourage those words, take them head on, shine a nice, bright light on them.

Are you?
.

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

Contributing to some group that opposes gay marriage is not sufficient justification for getting some CEO canned. It's thuggery.

I would add that the reason it's thuggery is because they are punishing the man simply because he has an opinion, not because he has done anything to warrant punishment. If he went on television and said god hates homosexuals, that might be a justification for punishment, but simply choosing to support one side or the other of a ballot initiative should be a right that every citizen can exercise.

That's an easy position to take when you agree with the opinion.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

People are free to buy from a business if they choose, or choose not to.

Indeed.

A "massive boycott" was proposed against Chik-Fil-A. The company more than made up for any losses from the additional customers who bought their goods simply to show support for their right to hold a position.

The left's boycott of Chik Fil La propelled Chik Fil La to the America's favorite fast food. Talk about shooting yourself in the toe

Yes, junk food is big with stupid people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

People are free to buy from a business if they choose, or choose not to.

Indeed.

A "massive boycott" was proposed against Chik-Fil-A. The company more than made up for any losses from the additional customers who bought their goods simply to show support for their right to hold a position.

The left's boycott of Chik Fil La propelled Chik Fil La to the America's favorite fast food. Talk about shooting yourself in the toe

Chik fil A caved.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

People are free to buy from a business if they choose, or choose not to.

Indeed.

A "massive boycott" was proposed against Chik-Fil-A. The company more than made up for any losses from the additional customers who bought their goods simply to show support for their right to hold a position.

The left's boycott of Chik Fil La propelled Chik Fil La to the America's favorite fast food. Talk about shooting yourself in the toe

In September 2012, The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA) announced that Chick-fil-A had "ceased donating to organizations that promote discrimination, specifically against LGBT civil rights." Chick-fil-A officials did state in an internal document that they "will treat every person equally, regardless of sexual orientation."[60] In a letter from Chick-fil-A's Senior Director of Real Estate, the company states, "The WinShape Foundation is now taking a much closer look at the organizations it considers helping, and in that process will remain true to its stated philosophy of not supporting organizations with political agendas."[61][62]

 

[9aces]

What the PC Police choose to ignore about freedom of speech/expression is what is implicit:

Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery. It goes against the very spirit of the idea.

Obviously.

I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking, and (perhaps most importantly) who agrees with them. I can't do that if they keep it hidden and allow their craziness to fester and grow and manifest in other ways.

Stop being afraid of words, folks. If you're so confident in your positions, you should welcome and encourage those words, take them head on, shine a nice, bright light on them.

Are you?
.

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

People are free to buy from a business if they choose, or choose not to.

Tell Mac. He's the one who called boycotts, in the sense that they can be the consequence of someone else's free speech, thuggery.

If you believe this, then you should also accept the principle "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

 

[the_human_being]

 

[NYcarbineer]

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

People are free to buy from a business if they choose, or choose not to.

Tell Mac. He's the one who called boycotts, in the sense that they can be the consequence of someone else's free speech, thuggery.

If you believe this, then you should also accept the principle "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

Why? My personal buying choices are not a business.

 

[9aces]

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

People are free to buy from a business if they choose, or choose not to.

Tell Mac. He's the one who called boycotts, in the sense that they can be the consequence of someone else's free speech, thuggery.

If you believe this, then you should also accept the principle "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

Why? My personal buying choices are not a business.

If you believe the consumer has the right not to buy from a business, you should equally believe a business has the right not to sell you something.

It's the same principle.

 

[bripat9643]

Once upon a time there was this imbecile Liberal who admitted his antipathy to free speech....


"Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good." The Liberal Commitment.....

Oh...wait.....that was you!

Yep, and still true for people who say utterly stupid shit, like you.

Go to Hobby Lobby, buy a nice mirror, take a good look. You seem to need to realize the person looking back at you despises freedom, and really doesn't have the least clue what freedom is.

I don't tolerate the stupid well, neither do most liberals, including the Founders. Stupid people annoy us.

Don't waste your time invoking the founders because you have absolutely no relation to them.

He does that a lot. It's funny.

All these liberal morons do it, that is, when they aren't calling the Founding Fathers racist, sexist, homophobic male pigs.

 

[bripat9643]

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

People are free to buy from a business if they choose, or choose not to.

Tell Mac. He's the one who called boycotts, in the sense that they can be the consequence of someone else's free speech, thuggery.

If you believe this, then you should also accept the principle "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

Why? My personal buying choices are not a business.

A business is private property. What gives you the right to tell it who it must serve?

 

[Wilbur Right]

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

People are free to buy from a business if they choose, or choose not to.

Tell Mac. He's the one who called boycotts, in the sense that they can be the consequence of someone else's free speech, thuggery.

If you believe this, then you should also accept the principle "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

Why? My personal buying choices are not a business.

If you believe the consumer has the right not to buy from a business, you should equally believe a business has the right not to sell you something.

It's the same principle.

Not the same. Consumers have a choice who they do business with. No law applies to a consumers choice.

Business open to the public have that pesky public accommodation law to contend with.

Change the law. If you can.

 

[bripat9643]

What the PC Police choose to ignore about freedom of speech/expression is what is implicit:

Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery. It goes against the very spirit of the idea.

Obviously.

I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking, and (perhaps most importantly) who agrees with them. I can't do that if they keep it hidden and allow their craziness to fester and grow and manifest in other ways.

Stop being afraid of words, folks. If you're so confident in your positions, you should welcome and encourage those words, take them head on, shine a nice, bright light on them.

Are you?
.

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

Contributing to some group that opposes gay marriage is not sufficient justification for getting some CEO canned. It's thuggery.

I would add that the reason it's thuggery is because they are punishing the man simply because he has an opinion, not because he has done anything to warrant punishment. If he went on television and said god hates homosexuals, that might be a justification for punishment, but simply choosing to support one side or the other of a ballot initiative should be a right that every citizen can exercise.

That's an easy position to take when you agree with the opinion.

Why should that be difficult? I think lots of corporate CEO's are worse than commies, like George Soros. You don't see me having temper tantrums over his donations to left wing organizations, do you?

 

[bripat9643]

People are free to buy from a business if they choose, or choose not to.

Tell Mac. He's the one who called boycotts, in the sense that they can be the consequence of someone else's free speech, thuggery.

If you believe this, then you should also accept the principle "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

Why? My personal buying choices are not a business.

If you believe the consumer has the right not to buy from a business, you should equally believe a business has the right not to sell you something.

It's the same principle.

Not the same. Consumers have a choice who they do business with. No law applies to a consumers choice.

Business open to the public have that pesky public accommodation law to contend with.

Change the law. If you can.

The point is that the law is an infringement on the owner's property rights. Of course, you don't give a crap about property rights.

 

[Wilbur Right]

The point is that the law is an infringement on the owner's property rights. Of course, you don't give a crap about property rights.

It's the law. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. Change the law. There is a process to do just that. Right?

You want to do business on feelings eh?
Like I don't feel.like doing business with you, so why should I.have to.

Is that what you want?

 

[9aces]

People are free to buy from a business if they choose, or choose not to.

Tell Mac. He's the one who called boycotts, in the sense that they can be the consequence of someone else's free speech, thuggery.

If you believe this, then you should also accept the principle "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

Why? My personal buying choices are not a business.

If you believe the consumer has the right not to buy from a business, you should equally believe a business has the right not to sell you something.

It's the same principle.

Not the same. Consumers have a choice who they do business with. No law applies to a consumers choice.

Business open to the public have that pesky public accommodation law to contend with.

Change the law. If you can.

It's the exact same principle. You're fine with discrimination....we get it.

 

[bripat9643]

The point is that the law is an infringement on the owner's property rights. Of course, you don't give a crap about property rights.

It's the law. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. Change the law. There is a process to do just that. Right?

You want to do business on feelings eh?
Like I don't feel.like doing business with you, so why should I.have to.

Is that what you want?

So you don't care whether laws violate the rights of individuals?

Thanks for admitting that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tell Mac. He's the one who called boycotts, in the sense that they can be the consequence of someone else's free speech, thuggery.

If you believe this, then you should also accept the principle "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

Why? My personal buying choices are not a business.

If you believe the consumer has the right not to buy from a business, you should equally believe a business has the right not to sell you something.

It's the same principle.

Not the same. Consumers have a choice who they do business with. No law applies to a consumers choice.

Business open to the public have that pesky public accommodation law to contend with.

Change the law. If you can.

It's the exact same principle. You're fine with discrimination....we get it.

So you think your family dinner is the same as operating a restaurant?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The point is that the law is an infringement on the owner's property rights. Of course, you don't give a crap about property rights.

It's the law. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. Change the law. There is a process to do just that. Right?

You want to do business on feelings eh?
Like I don't feel.like doing business with you, so why should I.have to.

Is that what you want?

So you don't care whether laws violate the rights of individuals?

Thanks for admitting that.

The right not to be discriminated against by a business is the right the laws protect.

 

[Weatherman2020]