How long before 'free speech' is totally banned in America?

Just_Me_D

Ambassador Team Leader, Senior Moderator
Moderator
Jan 8, 2012
59,707
632
113
Visit site
I never said that the consequences are justified or equal.
No, you did not, but you did say, "There are consequences of what comes out of your mouth, especially in public."

Is this about the fairness of public discourse or free speech being restricted by a government entity?
This is about the aforementioned consequences reply you made. I was conveying that some 'consequences' aren't justified or even equal and thus, we should be tolerant beyond our personal tastes. In other words, there shouldn't always be consequences to what someone states in public.
 

kilofoxtrot

Well-known member
Jan 11, 2011
1,204
36
0
Visit site
C'mon man. Stop playing' around. You know darn well that it was their spoken reason for refusal that got them in trouble and not the refusal itself.

So... if they kept their mouth shut and just said no, or ignored the couple, none of this would happen?

C'mon on man.....
 

Just_Me_D

Ambassador Team Leader, Senior Moderator
Moderator
Jan 8, 2012
59,707
632
113
Visit site
So... if they kept their mouth shut and just said no, or ignored the couple, none of this would happen?

C'mon on man.....
In 'this particular situation', no. Activists and the media would have totally disregarded the owner's personal beliefs, no matter how polite they were in their refusal as evidenced by the picketing, the threats, etcetera. The owners of the bakery didn't prevent them from getting married or even spoke ill of them. They simply refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple due to their beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. If it had been a Muslim bakery that refused to make a cake, that would have been the end of it. Those guys would have sought a cake elsewhere, in my opinion.
 

kilofoxtrot

Well-known member
Jan 11, 2011
1,204
36
0
Visit site
In 'this particular situation', no. Activists and the media would have totally disregarded the owner's personal beliefs, no matter how polite they were in their refusal as evidenced by the picketing, the threats, etcetera. The owners of the bakery didn't prevent them from getting married or even spoke ill of them. They simply refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple due to their beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. If it had been a Muslim bakery that refused to make a cake, that would have been the end of it. Those guys would have sought a cake elsewhere, in my opinion.

Exactly. This is a case of Freedom of Religion, not Freedom of Speech. IMO
 

Just_Me_D

Ambassador Team Leader, Senior Moderator
Moderator
Jan 8, 2012
59,707
632
113
Visit site
Exactly. This is a case of Freedom of Religion, not Freedom of Speech. IMO
No. They were free to exercise their religious beliefs up until the time they verbally declined to make a cake for a same-sex couple. In my opinion, they could have said, "I'm not making a cake for you simply because I don't want to", and they still would be in the position that they're in due to the fact that the couple is gay.
 

Haalcyon

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2014
865
0
0
Visit site
I thought free speech was already banned in America. I've seen multiple examples of this. You only have free speech as long as you don't offend the wrong people. Not saying whether that's bad or good...just noting it.
 
Last edited:

iOS Gravity

Well-known member
Sep 24, 2013
4,071
1
0
Visit site
C'mon man. Stop playing' around. You know darn well that it was their spoken reason for refusal that got them in trouble and not the refusal itself.

This entire case doesn't make sense to me. A bakery refuses to bake them a cake, so they sue it and win $130,000 for "emotional suffering"... They could've just went to another bakery, knowing that the owner couldn't violate their religious beliefs...
 

kilofoxtrot

Well-known member
Jan 11, 2011
1,204
36
0
Visit site

I'll be more succinct. Do you want over 300 different religious groups to be able to deny services based on their religious beliefs?

In the case of Sweet Cakes, Oregon found that they refused to serve some because of their sexual orientation. Had Sweet Cakes won, see the above.

This has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with using religion to discriminate.

The Supreme Court has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief.

The legislative branch may prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even where the motivation for that conduct is base on a religion. This too has been held up in courts.

On a side note, I wonder how many wedding cakes Sweet Cakes made for couples who engaged in premarital sex? I bet quite a few. It would appear that Sweet Cakes cherry picked what sinner they would serve and ones that they would not.
 

kilofoxtrot

Well-known member
Jan 11, 2011
1,204
36
0
Visit site
Last edited:

Latest posts

Trending Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
259,997
Messages
1,765,281
Members
441,219
Latest member
MadisonOlsen