Mac (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:10 pm Read my post. I said that I was not taking sides on the issue but questioning the unequal rights to free speach. The proponents of gay marriage were denying the owner of Chick-fil-A his right to free speach while claiming that their rights to free speech be protected.

I feel that both should have equal rights. What is wrong with that? How do you see that as "not getting it"?

If he said he supported gay marriage there would not have been any demonstration. I agree with giving gay couples the same legal rights as opposite sex couples just don't force the churches to sanction it against their beliefs.

Here is the problem.

One person says something.

Another person disagrees, and says so.

If you infringe on free speech, you infring on the right to disagree. Otherwise you just have one person saying things, and the other lives in fear of retaliation. That is not free speech.

In order to have free speech, it must be applied to everyone.

Chick-Fil-A can say whatever they want, and pursue politically whatever they want. That is their right to free speech.

However...

People must be free to disagree, (protest) and exercize their free speech too.

Free speech does not mean you get automatic approval for the things you say. Nor does it protect you from criticism or protest. You CAN be held accountable for the things you say. You can be sent to jail for purjury. Lying is not free speech. If you yell FIRE in a crowded theater, you can be found guilty of inciting a riot. Just because you CAN say things, does not free you from consequence.

The cities of

Mac (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:16 am Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago

can deny Chick-Fil-A for the same reason that if someone came to my door and said, "I really hate the Jews. Can I come in?" I wouldn't let them in. My reason for not allowing them in is my disagreement with their speech. Freedom of speech is not a free pass to say whatever you want and people have to accept it.

No one is denying Chick-Fil-A their rights, they are merely feeling the backlash that is called DISAGREEMENT.

The cities disagree with the politics, and the hate speech (which they are allowed to say) and because they disagree they decide not to grant that business a licence because it does not represent the city's values. The city is not stopping the speech. The city is showing its disagreement in the way it is legally allowed.

The government must protect the speech, and cannot interfere with Chick-fil-a's right to say what they like, but they do not have to protect them from the perfectly legal backlash that is happening because of that speech.

Having free speech does not silence opposition. Silencing opposition is NOT free speech. Disagreement is INTEGRAL to free speech.

Do you get it now?

River is probably right on this one. You cannot get this.

Please do not attack me for things which I did not say.

I never said anything against gay marriage but that is the sole basis of your comments and attacks. My only comment regarding that was; "

Mac (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:10 pm I agree with giving gay couples the same legal rights as opposite sex couples just don't force the churches to sanction it against their beliefs

".

My question (and not an opinion) was in regard to free speech; "Why is one's spee

Mac (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:16 am ch justified and the other not?

" The point of the referenced article was that Dan Cathy's right to free speech was being denied by the protestors and certain cities.

Mac (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:42 pm Please do not attack me for things which I did not say.

I never said anything against gay marriage but that is the sole basis of your comments and attacks. My only comment regarding that was; "

Mac (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:10 pm I agree with giving gay couples the same legal rights as opposite sex couples just don't force the chur

Mac (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:42 pm ches to sanction it against their beliefs

".

My question (and not an opinio

n) was in regard to free speech

Mac (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:42 pm ; "Why is one's spee

Mac (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:16 am ch justified and the other not?

" The point of the referenced ar

ticle was that Dan Cathy's right to free speech was being denied by the protestors and certain cities.

Does anyone else feel that talking to Mac is like talking to a rock? I explained the difference, and several other people did, too. Yet, he just restates his original question.

Mac so typifies the Right Wing in this country.

OK, this thread is just about done, I think.

Mac, nobody said the chicken king does not have the right to be against gay marriage and say it, NOBODY.

Mac, Nobody said the response to the chicken fucker was wrong either,

Just as one has the right to make a total ass of himself is OK, others have the same right to show that the guy is an ass.

That Mac is freedom of speech.

This is not Cain, NO NO NO this is River posting on Cain's PC. at the MOM.

Now for the final comment,

We had a vote, Paolo wanted to close this thread, and so did Jesus and Cainanite HOWEVER I won, yes me the River man.,

CLOSED by Riverwind the wise

The only reason that you won is because you made me blueberry pancakes! - Paolo