Actor forbids ‘bigots and homophobes’ from watching his work following Supreme Court ruling

[j-mac]

Who, the graphic designer from the court case? You may be right.

Aw, did the big bad SCOTUS tell you that you can't bully people? Too bad...

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The wedding designer controls who uses her services.

No, that's not what the case was about. You should read it. The case was about first amendment rights.

 

[j-mac]

No, that's not what the case was about. You should read it. The case was about first amendment rights.

That's right, and a person's creativity is speech....So, hence the ruling, that you can't control speech....Too bad for you.

 

[struth]

Based on the Supreme Court's precedent, he absolutely has the right.

1. He created an expressive work.
2. That work is protected by the first amendment.
3. Therefore, his free speech rights entitle him to prohibit who will buy that work after all.

another idiot that doesn’t understand the ruling or the law

no he doesnkr he doesnkr own the work, he ss paid by HBO to act, HbO owns the show.

now he could have refused to work for HBO before he acted…but he didn’t

you dembots are clueless

 

[wamose]

Almost all Democrats are bigots and many Republicans aren't pro LGBTQ. That means this dweeb is telling almost everyone not to watch his movies.

 

[Cellblock2429]

No, that's not what the case was about. You should read it. The case was about first amendment rights.

/---/ Sure thing Bimbo.

 

[struth]

No, that's not what the case was about. You should read it. The case was about first amendment rights.

haha it is what it was about…someone can’t control her and make her violate her religious beliefs. another win for freedom and a big L for the demafacist tyrants that want to oppress people and force them into submission

 

[Stormy Daniels]

no he doesnkr he doesnkr own the work, he ss paid by HBO to act, HbO owns the show.

You are talking about copyright law. But the case had nothing to do with copyright law. This is about free speech. The court ruled that free speech rights give a person the right to exclude others from your forms of expression if you have an objection to that person. So a graphic designer can exclude a gay couple from using her design for a website. It therefore follows that an actor can exclude a bigot from using his performance. Or that an author can exclude a Christian from reading his book. It's all part of free speech.

If something constitutes a form of expression (i.e. is a form of speech), then the expressor's first amendment rights allow them to define who is permitted to hear that speech.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

someone can’t control her and make her violate her religious beliefs.

It wasn't about religious beliefs, it was about free speech. READ THE OPINION.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Is this your way of saying you really don't give a care as long as you get your way?

You guys are the professional , "If i dont get my way i will scream". Marxists.

 

[Cellblock2429]

It wasn't about religious beliefs, it was about free speech. READ THE OPINION.

/----/ It wasn't about religious beliefs, it was about free speech. READ THE OPINION.

HEY BIMBO - YOU NEED TO READ THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

It wasn't about religious beliefs, it was about free speech. READ THE OPINION.

It was all about her not having to go against her beliefs, you retarded baffoon. If a Muslim Baker doesnt want to bake a dildo for a fagot, should he be forced into doing it? Or would fag end up like most queers, beheaded or thrown from the roof of a tall building? You fuckers always attack Christians about their values, but never try it with Muzzies? That is because you are EVIL mother fuckers.

 

[struth]

You are talking about copyright law. But the case had nothing to do with copyright law. This is about free speech. The court ruled that free speech rights give a person the right to exclude others from your forms of expression if you have an objection to that person. So a graphic designer can exclude a gay couple from using her design for a website. It therefore follows that an actor can exclude a bigot from using his performance. Or that an author can exclude a Christian from reading his book. It's all part of free speech.

If something constitutes a form of expression (i.e. is a form of speech), then the expressor's first amendment rights allow them to define who is permitted to hear that speech.

he had a right to object to preforming before he performs she didn’t. He sold his work to HBO

 

[struth]

It wasn't about religious beliefs, it was about free speech. READ THE OPINION.

she objected to doing the work based on her faith, the court ruled that it was speech, and she couldn’t be compelled by the state to do so.

the actor whining, already provided the work, he did so and had no objection to it and sold his work to HBO.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

the court ruled that it was speech, and she couldn’t be compelled by the state to do so.

Now you're starting to get it. As a result of the court's decision, speakers are now entitled to regulate who can hear that speech.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

he had a right to object to preforming before he performs she didn’t. He sold his work to HBO

That is a question of copyright law, not free speech.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

It was all about her not having to go against her beliefs

Oh really? Well then you might want to reach out to the Supreme Court, because they disagree with you.

 

[struth]

Now you're starting to get it. As a result of the court's decision, speakers are now entitled to regulate who can hear that speech.

haha that’s always been the case. The demafasict in CO passed a law trying to violate that and force people to speak even if they didn’t want to. That’s the issue

 

[struth]

That is a question of copyright law, not free speech.

haha no it’s not. he had the right not to act if he decided to, he decided to. He was paid for his service. The company paid him, they own the performance…not him

had this designer sold her services, the clients would of owned the design

 

[The Duke]

That is a question of copyright law, not free speech.

Now you're starting to catch on..maybe.