PaulH
- 3 Followers
- 8 Following
- 30 Posts
Law enforcement (retired), freelance photojournalist, early social media networking (Fidonet, BBS)
@davetroy how do is that ?
@Gustodon Then you need to understand you are advocating the negating of the rights of others to be in charge of what they think, feel and act upon. I suggest, politely, you consider that if it is fine for you to do that to others, why would it not be right for someone else to you? How would you feel about someone else controlling what you’re allowed to think, feel, believe and act upon?
@Gustodon I wasn’t addressing calling someone’s religious beliefs stupid. That’s just rude. You said, “You’d do so until you could purge their beliefs from the earth.” I stated purging others religious beliefs in this country is a violation of the First Amendment’s religious freedom’s protection.
@Gustodon That’s your world view and you are entitled to it BUT: Constitutionally your right to swing your fist ends where the other guy’s nose begins. Meaning, in this case, your rights to free speech ends where religiously oppresses someone else. As long as that’s not the case, fire at will.
@juddlegum All a former POTUS has to do to avoid civil tort court proceedings for sexual assault and various other serious findings of negligence and neglect issues is not commit sexual assault or other serious negligence or neglect issues. Doesn’t seem that hard.
@juddlegum Links to subscription only content are useless to those without subscriptions with no plans on subscribing just to read the linked material.
Correction: Everyone has a Constitutional right to their beliefs and to speak them.
@virginiaheffernan Fundies have a Constitutional right to believe abortion is murder and that homosexuality is an abomination under God’s Word. We don’t have to agree with it. We can be vehemently opposed. That doesn’t remove the slippery slope on your beliefs being restricted when we start violating the First Amendment rights of others we disagree with.
2 of 2
@virginiaheffernan Now, this is a more compelling argument. Are you stating this is a contributor or are they administration behind the messaging? The latter being obviously more problematic than the former.
BTW, there is a line here. Everyone has a Constitutional right to their beliefs and to does them. They just don’t have a right to violate others. Labeling folks as hate groups based on religious belief is dodgy at best.
1 of 2