Mississippi’s Anti-LGBT Law Is the Most Dangerous One Yet

MadHatter wrote: Sources hmm lets see first amendment protects freedom of association.

The First Amendment protects peaceable assembly, not association. The words are different because they mean different things.

Can I walk into a store and exercise my right to free speech by going on a racist rant? Or would the property owner not only be able to boot me but ban me from ever coming back?

Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of your speech. Trespassing laws aren't necessarily a protection that assists in making your point, though. And public businesses are held to non-discriminatio standards by law in most states and on a federal level.

Oh the 14th amendment you say? Which part? Do you mean the equal protection clause?

Yes, in fact. I do.

Hmm funny you see it grantees LAWS be applied equally.

You mean like state and federal non-discrimination laws?

Further then you must feel all people who support free speech are the same as the KKK or other people who use that speech to spew hate. You must feel all people who support freedom of religion are the same the the Westboro Baptists who protest soldiers funerals and spread hate. Because hey they support liberty.

Paragraphs like this are why I think the Temple needs a mandatory lesson on logic, because that conclusion and those premises don't go together.

In short nothing you have said is logical. Are you unfamiliar with the phrase " I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." I dont have to like how people use liberties to support their freedom to have them.

But discrimination isn't a freedom. It isn't protected by law anywhere. Even in many First Amendment cases it's been struck completely down. Freedom of speech and expression are wholly separate topics than discriminatory business practices, which have no basis for legal protection. Your entire argument is based on something that is non-factual.

I saw this image the other day and thought it had an interesting point of view.



Valid response or not?

And just to be sure, I want to remind everyone that I do firmly believe that discrimination is wrong and laws that are solely designed to allow discrimination are also wrong.

Michael Moore goes a bit overboard most of the time, but in this instance he is protesting the law of North Carolina, not the people in North Carolina. He is choosing not to do business in a state which is very different than choosing not to do business with a specific minority. The response was clever, but I believe Mr. Swerens missed the point. It would be hard for me to believe that North Carolina will feel discriminated against simply because Michael Moore has denied them the "liberty" of sitting through another of his films.