119
The Supreme Court’s Disorienting Elevation of Religion
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
119 points (97.6% liked)
politics
18870 readers
3909 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well, no, because making a wedding cake supporting a marriage is inherently different from making a cake supporting a hate group. One is about bringing people together, the other is about dividing them. Also, LGBTQ* people don't choose their sexuality, it's an inalienable part of who they are. Nazis choose to be Nazis. Some might be raised in it, so it's all they know, but it's something they can change about themselves. Someone who is bisexual is pretty much always going to be bisexual. It's the same reason we don't discriminate on the basis on skin color: it's something the person can't control about themselves and has no bearing on who they are except to the degree society has made it so. A religion discriminating on the basis of race or sexuality doesn't mean it's okay to do so. Christians also used to believe in child marriage, but guess what? Times have changed.
Additionally, just because it's speech doesn't mean it's equal in what it's doing nor does it mean that it should be treated the same. Ignoring that this case probably shouldn't be used as precedent because the underlying facts are made up (also showing how disingenuous the argument is), there's a difference between saying you can't choose to deny business to someone because of who they are (LBGTQ*) versus saying you can choose not to do business with someone over their opinion (Nazi).
You don't seem to understand. Free speech is fundamental. If you make it so hate groups can't express themselves you open up precedent to making it so LGBT people can't express themselves.
If you force people to platforming LGBT speech against their beliefs, it opens the legal argument that you need to give a platform to hate groups as well.
This is about precedent, not morals. That's how free speech is codified in America. It is not like Europe where you can pick and choose what's legal.
Free speech absolutist I see.
I mean, I honestly have never met a “free speech absolutist” that was any different than musk. “Free speech absolutist unless I don’t like you posting it and then I’ll flip sides because my original position was a convenient lie”
HOWEVER, it’s fairly well supported that a tolerant society MUST NOT tolerate intolerance. So we MUST not tolerate any view that a particular group of people shouldn’t exist (with the obvious exceptions of other intolerance)
The paradox of tolerance is on Wikipedia if you’d like a read.
Free speech is not absolute, there are exceptions. And the government can't really stop hate speech until it crosses a certain threshold. Also, the fictional gay couple in the case in question was literally denied a platform and your argument has no internal logic, so I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. Saying you can't discriminate against gay people is not the same as saying you should be forced to build websites for Nazis. To argue otherwise is disingenuous.