Constitution???? What Constitution?

[PoliticalChic]

Shocker!

Congress making laws that infract the Constitution.

And there are judges who say black is white and up is down....and 'established by the state' means 'established by the federal government.'


I honor the Constitution as the law of the land.

You don't.

And as long as there are more folks like you than like me.....America is doomed.

We have laws against discrimination, and in Oregon specifically, there are laws against businesses discriminating against same sex couples. That is the law of the land. Do you honor it, Dingbat?

Hey....moron....what does this have to do with gag orders????


See what I mean about you being a moron?

There is nothing preventing the Klein's from talking about the court ruling. They can stage a protest, cry about it on Facebook, they can even throw themselves on the floor and have a big baby tantrum.

The Klein's made it clear that they would discriminate AGAIN. Rather than fine the Kleins further, Avakian wrote that the couple must “cease and desist”. In other words, they are not allowed continue their discrimination policy in the state of Oregon because it is against the fucking law.

What part of that do you not understand, Dingbat?

This is no more of a "gag order," any more than telling employers they can't hang up signs stating they refuse to serve black people.

Try to get that through your thick skull.

View attachment 44760

View attachment 44761


http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

Did you miss this?

1. "In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to“cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs."


2. Gag order on Governor Scott Walker's supporters: " The investigation is taking place under Wisconsin's John Doe law, which barsa subpoena's targets from disclosing its contentsto anyone but his attorneys. John Doe probes work much like a grand jury, allowing prosecutors to issue subpoenas and conduct searches, while thegag orders leave the targets facing the resources of the state with no way to publicly defend themselves."
Review Outlook Wisconsin Political Speech Raid - WSJ


3. Gag Orders on clergy: . " Churches and other nonprofits are strictlyprohibited fromengaging in political campaigning. This prohibition stems from the requirements of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”).
Cannot make any communication—either from the pulpit, in a newsletter, or church bulletin—which expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a candidate for public office.


4.Obama's Supreme Court Justice Kagan believes in banning free speech: In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it maybe proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

5. Gag orders: unconstitutional
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2165&context=faculty_scholarship


6. . Orders prohibiting participants in a case from commenting to reporters or the publicalso infringe on the First Amendment rights of the individuals gagged.At least one court has ruled gag orders on trial participants are as serious as those on the press and subject to the same strict test for constitutionality.
Introduction -- What to do if a court issues a gag order Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press


7. Obama Gag Order on any discussion of guns online: The proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech.This is because all such releases would require the ‘authorization’ of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.
Obama To Circumvent Congress With Gag Order On Firearm Coverage




QED....When it comes to silencing opposing viewpoints,Liberal/Progressives/Democrats.....

....are no different than Nazis, fascists, communists, or socialists in power.

Your "gag order" means they can't hang a sign saying they openly discriminate. "No, Shoes, Shirts, Service, Ni@@ers. And this law has been around for 30 years. Oregon law says they can't discriminate against same sex couples.

Get the fuck over it, Dingbat. Respect our laws.

Really???

All of these are to prevent posting "No, Shoes, Shirts, Service, Ni@@ers."

Or are you simply a bald-faced liar?


1. "In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to“cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs."


2. Gag order on Governor Scott Walker's supporters: " The investigation is taking place under Wisconsin's John Doe law, which barsa subpoena's targets from disclosing its contents to anyone but his attorneys. John Doe probes work much like a grand jury, allowing prosecutors to issue subpoenas and conduct searches, while thegag orders leave the targets facing the resources of the state with no way to publicly defend themselves."
Review Outlook Wisconsin Political Speech Raid - WSJ


3. Gag Orders on clergy: . " Churches and other nonprofits are strictlyprohibited fromengaging in political campaigning. This prohibition stems from the requirements of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”).
Cannot make any communication—either from the pulpit, in a newsletter, or church bulletin—which expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a candidate for public office.


4.Obama's Supreme Court Justice Kagan believes in banning free speech: In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it maybe proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

5. Gag orders: unconstitutional
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2165&context=faculty_scholarship


6. . Orders prohibiting participants in a case from commenting to reporters or the publicalso infringe on the First Amendment rights of the individuals gagged.At least one court has ruled gag orders on trial participants are as serious as those on the press and subject to the same strict test for constitutionality.
Introduction -- What to do if a court issues a gag order Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press


7. Obama Gag Order on any discussion of guns online: The proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech.This is because all such releases would require the ‘authorization’ of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.
Obama To Circumvent Congress With Gag Order On Firearm Coverage

 

[Carla_Danger]

But congress did make a law inspiring gag orders! They have been issued from the bench for years! Get another third grader to explain the words of the amendment to you.

Shocker!

Congress making laws that infract the Constitution.

And there are judges who say black is white and up is down....and 'established by the state' means 'established by the federal government.'


I honor the Constitution as the law of the land.

You don't.

And as long as there are more folks like you than like me.....America is doomed.

State, county and municipal judges invoke gag rules. Federal judges do as well. And gag orders have been upheld by higher courts upon appeal. Congress did not make laws that "infract" the constitution which you claim to honor but fail to understand.

As long as there are folks like you, folks like me will have to slowly and simply explain the folly of your warped thinking.

"Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; orabridging 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."
Need I identify the source of the above?
Is an explanation of the importance of same to America necessary?



For clarity, and so that I may address you correctly .....

...are your really, really stupid....

.....or a fascist?

You're complaining about a court ordered gag order and then you're blaming congress.

There are three branches of federal government. The executive (presidency), legislative (congress) and judicial (federal courts).

Don't preach constitutional relevance until you understand the constitution. And stop throwing the term 'fascist" until you understand thed meaning of that word.

How's life in your parent's basement? I am convinced that you cannot be self sufficient with such a lack of common knowledge.

Did you miss this?

1. "In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to“cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs."

Again, the above is incorrect. They can speak of it, they just can't advertise that their business is going to discriminate in the future, because that is against the fucking law.....Dingbat.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Wait for it. Dingbat will now throw out the same cut n paste nonsense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Shocker!

Congress making laws that infract the Constitution.

And there are judges who say black is white and up is down....and 'established by the state' means 'established by the federal government.'


I honor the Constitution as the law of the land.

You don't.

And as long as there are more folks like you than like me.....America is doomed.

We have laws against discrimination, and in Oregon specifically, there are laws against businesses discriminating against same sex couples. That is the law of the land. Do you honor it, Dingbat?

Hey....moron....what does this have to do with gag orders????


See what I mean about you being a moron?

There is nothing preventing the Klein's from talking about the court ruling. They can stage a protest, cry about it on Facebook, they can even throw themselves on the floor and have a big baby tantrum.

The Klein's made it clear that they would discriminate AGAIN. Rather than fine the Kleins further, Avakian wrote that the couple must “cease and desist”. In other words, they are not allowed continue their discrimination policy in the state of Oregon because it is against the fucking law.

What part of that do you not understand, Dingbat?

This is no more of a "gag order," any more than telling employers they can't hang up signs stating they refuse to serve black people.

Try to get that through your thick skull.

View attachment 44760

View attachment 44761


http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

Did you miss this?

1. "In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to“cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs."


2. Gag order on Governor Scott Walker's supporters: " The investigation is taking place under Wisconsin's John Doe law, which barsa subpoena's targets from disclosing its contentsto anyone but his attorneys. John Doe probes work much like a grand jury, allowing prosecutors to issue subpoenas and conduct searches, while thegag orders leave the targets facing the resources of the state with no way to publicly defend themselves."
Review Outlook Wisconsin Political Speech Raid - WSJ


3. Gag Orders on clergy: . " Churches and other nonprofits are strictlyprohibited fromengaging in political campaigning. This prohibition stems from the requirements of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”).
Cannot make any communication—either from the pulpit, in a newsletter, or church bulletin—which expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a candidate for public office.


4.Obama's Supreme Court Justice Kagan believes in banning free speech: In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it maybe proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

5. Gag orders: unconstitutional
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2165&context=faculty_scholarship


6. . Orders prohibiting participants in a case from commenting to reporters or the publicalso infringe on the First Amendment rights of the individuals gagged.At least one court has ruled gag orders on trial participants are as serious as those on the press and subject to the same strict test for constitutionality.
Introduction -- What to do if a court issues a gag order Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press


7. Obama Gag Order on any discussion of guns online: The proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech.This is because all such releases would require the ‘authorization’ of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.
Obama To Circumvent Congress With Gag Order On Firearm Coverage




QED....When it comes to silencing opposing viewpoints,Liberal/Progressives/Democrats.....

....are no different than Nazis, fascists, communists, or socialists in power.

Your "gag order" means they can't hang a sign saying they openly discriminate. "No, Shoes, Shirts, Service, Ni@@ers. And this law has been around for 30 years. Oregon law says they can't discriminate against same sex couples.

Get the fuck over it, Dingbat. Respect our laws.

"Respect our laws."

There is only one 'law of the land'.....and it includes this:
"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."


By "Respect our laws" you mean bow down to the all-powerful totalitarian government, don't you, you fascist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wait for it. Dingbat will now throw out the same cut n paste nonsense.

Want a gag order for her?



Nailed you again, huh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

We have laws against discrimination, and in Oregon specifically, there are laws against businesses discriminating against same sex couples. That is the law of the land. Do you honor it, Dingbat?

Hey....moron....what does this have to do with gag orders????


See what I mean about you being a moron?

There is nothing preventing the Klein's from talking about the court ruling. They can stage a protest, cry about it on Facebook, they can even throw themselves on the floor and have a big baby tantrum.

The Klein's made it clear that they would discriminate AGAIN. Rather than fine the Kleins further, Avakian wrote that the couple must “cease and desist”. In other words, they are not allowed continue their discrimination policy in the state of Oregon because it is against the fucking law.

What part of that do you not understand, Dingbat?

This is no more of a "gag order," any more than telling employers they can't hang up signs stating they refuse to serve black people.

Try to get that through your thick skull.

View attachment 44760

View attachment 44761


http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

Did you miss this?

1. "In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to“cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs."

You keep posting that as if you're quoting from the ruling but you're not quoting from the ruling.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How is that people who choose to do something this gay:

can turn around and claim a deepseated spiritual revulsion to gays?

lol

 

[Nosmo King]

Are these so-called Christians using a good law and a beautiful religion to serve bad purposes? First, they claim their Christian faith demands that they discriminate and demean homosexuals. Now, I'm a Christian and that is not one of the tenets of my faith. My Christianity calls us to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the sick, infirmed and imprisoned. My faith calls on humans to love their neighbor as they would love themselves. It also admonishes us to 'judge not lest we be judged'. But there is some dogma that admonishes homosexuality. Somehow that obscure bit of scripture has been elevated to a primary tenet of Christianity. This is using a beautiful faith to serve an ignoble purpose.

Then these same self-righteous so-called Christians use the 1st amendment to defend their bigotry under the aegis of freedom of religion. Can homophobia be seen as part and parcel of the worshipping Christian doctrine? Can a newly discovered bit of Christian dogma be sufficient to deny equality to fellow American citizens? This is using a good law to a bad purpose.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are these so-called Christians using a good law and a beautiful religion to serve bad purposes? First, they claim their Christian faith demands that they discriminate and demean homosexuals. Now, I'm a Christian and that is not one of the tenets of my faith. My Christianity calls us to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the sick, infirmed and imprisoned. My faith calls on humans to love their neighbor as they would love themselves. It also admonishes us to 'judge not lest we be judged'. But there is some dogma that admonishes homosexuality. Somehow that obscure bit of scripture has been elevated to a primary tenet of Christianity. This is using a beautiful faith to serve an ignoble purpose.

Then these same self-righteous so-called Christians use the 1st amendment to defend their bigotry under the aegis of freedom of religion. Can homophobia be seen as part and parcel of the worshipping Christian doctrine? Can a newly discovered bit of Christian dogma be sufficient to deny equality to fellow American citizens? This is using a good law to a bad purpose.

You change the subject means I win, huh?

 

[Nosmo King]

Are these so-called Christians using a good law and a beautiful religion to serve bad purposes? First, they claim their Christian faith demands that they discriminate and demean homosexuals. Now, I'm a Christian and that is not one of the tenets of my faith. My Christianity calls us to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the sick, infirmed and imprisoned. My faith calls on humans to love their neighbor as they would love themselves. It also admonishes us to 'judge not lest we be judged'. But there is some dogma that admonishes homosexuality. Somehow that obscure bit of scripture has been elevated to a primary tenet of Christianity. This is using a beautiful faith to serve an ignoble purpose.

Then these same self-righteous so-called Christians use the 1st amendment to defend their bigotry under the aegis of freedom of religion. Can homophobia be seen as part and parcel of the worshipping Christian doctrine? Can a newly discovered bit of Christian dogma be sufficient to deny equality to fellow American citizens? This is using a good law to a bad purpose.

You change the subject means I win, huh?

No, you lost several posts ago. Gag orders are legal, they are not written by congress so there is no constitutional conflict.

But you should understand the foundation of the issue, i.e. using good laws to serve bad purposes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How is that people who choose to do something this gay:

can turn around and claim a deepseated spiritual revulsion to gays?

lol

So....you believe in criminalizing thoughtcrimes, huh?


"The Thought Police (thinkpol in Newspeak) are the secret police of the fictional superstate, Oceania, in George Orwell's 1949 dystopiannovel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Orwell's Thought Police are charged with uncovering and punishing "thoughtcrime" and thought-criminals. They use psychological methodsand omnipresent surveillance (such as telescreens) to search, find, monitor, and arrest members of society who could potentially challenge authority and the status quo -- even if only by thought -- hence the name Thought Police.[1] They use terror and torture to achieve their ends."Thought Police - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



Orwell was writing about fascists like you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are these so-called Christians using a good law and a beautiful religion to serve bad purposes? First, they claim their Christian faith demands that they discriminate and demean homosexuals. Now, I'm a Christian and that is not one of the tenets of my faith. My Christianity calls us to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the sick, infirmed and imprisoned. My faith calls on humans to love their neighbor as they would love themselves. It also admonishes us to 'judge not lest we be judged'. But there is some dogma that admonishes homosexuality. Somehow that obscure bit of scripture has been elevated to a primary tenet of Christianity. This is using a beautiful faith to serve an ignoble purpose.

Then these same self-righteous so-called Christians use the 1st amendment to defend their bigotry under the aegis of freedom of religion. Can homophobia be seen as part and parcel of the worshipping Christian doctrine? Can a newly discovered bit of Christian dogma be sufficient to deny equality to fellow American citizens? This is using a good law to a bad purpose.

You change the subject means I win, huh?

No, you lost several posts ago. Gag orders are legal, they are not written by congress so there is no constitutional conflict.

But you should understand the foundation of the issue, i.e. using good laws to serve bad purposes.

I was wondering if you would verify the rumor that you produce your own makeup from recycled medical wastes, mostly blood and bile.

 

[Nosmo King]

Are these so-called Christians using a good law and a beautiful religion to serve bad purposes? First, they claim their Christian faith demands that they discriminate and demean homosexuals. Now, I'm a Christian and that is not one of the tenets of my faith. My Christianity calls us to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the sick, infirmed and imprisoned. My faith calls on humans to love their neighbor as they would love themselves. It also admonishes us to 'judge not lest we be judged'. But there is some dogma that admonishes homosexuality. Somehow that obscure bit of scripture has been elevated to a primary tenet of Christianity. This is using a beautiful faith to serve an ignoble purpose.

Then these same self-righteous so-called Christians use the 1st amendment to defend their bigotry under the aegis of freedom of religion. Can homophobia be seen as part and parcel of the worshipping Christian doctrine? Can a newly discovered bit of Christian dogma be sufficient to deny equality to fellow American citizens? This is using a good law to a bad purpose.

You change the subject means I win, huh?

No, you lost several posts ago. Gag orders are legal, they are not written by congress so there is no constitutional conflict.

But you should understand the foundation of the issue, i.e. using good laws to serve bad purposes.

I was wondering if you would verify the rumor that you produce your own makeup from recycled medical wastes, mostly blood and bile.

Is that what you consider an argument? And you call me names! What gall you have!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are these so-called Christians using a good law and a beautiful religion to serve bad purposes? First, they claim their Christian faith demands that they discriminate and demean homosexuals. Now, I'm a Christian and that is not one of the tenets of my faith. My Christianity calls us to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the sick, infirmed and imprisoned. My faith calls on humans to love their neighbor as they would love themselves. It also admonishes us to 'judge not lest we be judged'. But there is some dogma that admonishes homosexuality. Somehow that obscure bit of scripture has been elevated to a primary tenet of Christianity. This is using a beautiful faith to serve an ignoble purpose.

Then these same self-righteous so-called Christians use the 1st amendment to defend their bigotry under the aegis of freedom of religion. Can homophobia be seen as part and parcel of the worshipping Christian doctrine? Can a newly discovered bit of Christian dogma be sufficient to deny equality to fellow American citizens? This is using a good law to a bad purpose.

You change the subject means I win, huh?

No, you lost several posts ago. Gag orders are legal, they are not written by congress so there is no constitutional conflict.

But you should understand the foundation of the issue, i.e. using good laws to serve bad purposes.

I was wondering if you would verify the rumor that you produce your own makeup from recycled medical wastes, mostly blood and bile.

Is that what you consider an argument? And you call me names! What gall you have!

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve

 

[Carla_Danger]

Are these so-called Christians using a good law and a beautiful religion to serve bad purposes? First, they claim their Christian faith demands that they discriminate and demean homosexuals. Now, I'm a Christian and that is not one of the tenets of my faith. My Christianity calls us to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the sick, infirmed and imprisoned. My faith calls on humans to love their neighbor as they would love themselves. It also admonishes us to 'judge not lest we be judged'. But there is some dogma that admonishes homosexuality. Somehow that obscure bit of scripture has been elevated to a primary tenet of Christianity. This is using a beautiful faith to serve an ignoble purpose.

Then these same self-righteous so-called Christians use the 1st amendment to defend their bigotry under the aegis of freedom of religion. Can homophobia be seen as part and parcel of the worshipping Christian doctrine? Can a newly discovered bit of Christian dogma be sufficient to deny equality to fellow American citizens? This is using a good law to a bad purpose.

You change the subject means I win, huh?

You lost when you posted this ridiculous thread.

 

[Carla_Danger]

[

Let's review some examples in the threads I've so deftly constructed:

1. "In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to“cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs."


.

No, that is not what he did. If that is what he'd done they have already violated that and action would have been taken against them.

Has it?

Did you miss the rest of this?

1. "In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to“cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs."


2. Gag order on Governor Scott Walker's supporters: " The investigation is taking place under Wisconsin's John Doe law, which barsa subpoena's targets from disclosing its contentsto anyone but his attorneys. John Doe probes work much like a grand jury, allowing prosecutors to issue subpoenas and conduct searches, while thegag orders leave the targets facing the resources of the state with no way to publicly defend themselves."
Review Outlook Wisconsin Political Speech Raid - WSJ


3. Gag Orders on clergy: . " Churches and other nonprofits are strictlyprohibited fromengaging in political campaigning. This prohibition stems from the requirements of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”).
Cannot make any communication—either from the pulpit, in a newsletter, or church bulletin—which expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a candidate for public office.


4.Obama's Supreme Court Justice Kagan believes in banning free speech: In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it maybe proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

5. Gag orders: unconstitutional
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2165&context=faculty_scholarship


6. . Orders prohibiting participants in a case from commenting to reporters or the publicalso infringe on the First Amendment rights of the individuals gagged.At least one court has ruled gag orders on trial participants are as serious as those on the press and subject to the same strict test for constitutionality.
Introduction -- What to do if a court issues a gag order Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press


7. Obama Gag Order on any discussion of guns online: The proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech.This is because all such releases would require the ‘authorization’ of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.
Obama To Circumvent Congress With Gag Order On Firearm Coverage




QED....When it comes to silencing opposing viewpoints,Liberal/Progressives/Democrats.....

....are no different than Nazis, fascists, communists, or socialists in power.

Cut n paste queen, is now the spam queen.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How is that people who choose to do something this gay:

can turn around and claim a deepseated spiritual revulsion to gays?

lol

So....you believe in criminalizing thoughtcrimes, huh?


"The Thought Police (thinkpol in Newspeak) are the secret police of the fictional superstate, Oceania, in George Orwell's 1949 dystopiannovel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Orwell's Thought Police are charged with uncovering and punishing "thoughtcrime" and thought-criminals. They use psychological methodsand omnipresent surveillance (such as telescreens) to search, find, monitor, and arrest members of society who could potentially challenge authority and the status quo -- even if only by thought -- hence the name Thought Police.[1] They use terror and torture to achieve their ends."Thought Police - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



Orwell was writing about fascists like you.

Your changing the subject means I win, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are these so-called Christians using a good law and a beautiful religion to serve bad purposes? First, they claim their Christian faith demands that they discriminate and demean homosexuals. Now, I'm a Christian and that is not one of the tenets of my faith. My Christianity calls us to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the sick, infirmed and imprisoned. My faith calls on humans to love their neighbor as they would love themselves. It also admonishes us to 'judge not lest we be judged'. But there is some dogma that admonishes homosexuality. Somehow that obscure bit of scripture has been elevated to a primary tenet of Christianity. This is using a beautiful faith to serve an ignoble purpose.

Then these same self-righteous so-called Christians use the 1st amendment to defend their bigotry under the aegis of freedom of religion. Can homophobia be seen as part and parcel of the worshipping Christian doctrine? Can a newly discovered bit of Christian dogma be sufficient to deny equality to fellow American citizens? This is using a good law to a bad purpose.

\


You change the subject means I win, huh?

You lost when you posted this ridiculous thread.

Reality is defined by actions, not by words.

The reality is that you keep slithering back because the truth burns you.

See ya' soon.

 

[Ava]

Your education coming right up!


During the Democrat Lyndon Johnson administration, basically FDR-redux, the freedom of religious leaders to avail themselves of free speech was restricted.

4. " Churches and other nonprofits are strictly prohibited from engaging in political campaigning. This prohibition stems from the requirements of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”).

In order to remain tax-exempt under 501(c)(3), churches must abide by strict guidelines that prohibit election activity.

Churches cannot engage in any of the following activities under the federal tax law:

· Cannot endorse or oppose candidates for public office

· Cannot make any communication—either from the pulpit, in a newsletter, or church bulletin—which expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a candidate for public office

· Cannot ask a candidate for public office to sign a pledge or other promise to support a particular issue
Churches and Political Lobbying Activities - Freedom From Religion Foundation




"... make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech,...."

So, a church could not do political campaigning. The question here is, when a preacher is not working in an official capacity for a church, can they do political activity?
Maybe if a church registered as a political organisation instead of a charity then the preacher could say political stuff.

But again, I'm asking what you can't say. Seems to me that an individual can say what they like. When they work for a company that is different. I can't tell my boss to "go fuck off" for example, does that mean my free speech is being limited? No it does not. A company doesn't have the right to free speech. It's individuals that have the right to free speech. When you work for a company, on company pay, during company hours and officially representing a company you have to abide by different laws than when you're at home.

It's not difficult. You still have your freedom of speech.

"The question here is, blah blah blah....."

No....that's not the question.

1. The question is where all of you Liberal fascists come from, espousing some totalitarian view that it is good for people to be penalized for speaking their minds.


That's the question.



2. "Seems to me that an individual can say what they like. When they work for a company that is different."
You really are this stupid, aren't you.


3. ". I can't tell my boss....."
You moron....this is about government!!!!!


4. "A company doesn't have the right to free speech."
Citizens United v. FEC -


As I've said before.....Totalitarians include not just fascists, Nazis, communists, socialists.....
....but, as you prove....Liberals, Progressives, Democrats.


Where the heck are the real Americans?

PC. And they are outnumbering the real Americans as defined in the Constitution. They are anarchists. Thanks, Woody Wilson. You started your own wave of the decline of a once great nation whose citizens were proud to live according to the rule of law. Pull their own weight.

America and the free-market system of capitalism was too good to them. It turned out rotten spoiled little whiners who think the government owes them a living. They settled for being "bought and paid for." The ruination began and it is spiraling. Bless the unicorns and the magical land of namby-pamby.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Are these so-called Christians using a good law and a beautiful religion to serve bad purposes? First, they claim their Christian faith demands that they discriminate and demean homosexuals. Now, I'm a Christian and that is not one of the tenets of my faith. My Christianity calls us to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the sick, infirmed and imprisoned. My faith calls on humans to love their neighbor as they would love themselves. It also admonishes us to 'judge not lest we be judged'. But there is some dogma that admonishes homosexuality. Somehow that obscure bit of scripture has been elevated to a primary tenet of Christianity. This is using a beautiful faith to serve an ignoble purpose.

Then these same self-righteous so-called Christians use the 1st amendment to defend their bigotry under the aegis of freedom of religion. Can homophobia be seen as part and parcel of the worshipping Christian doctrine? Can a newly discovered bit of Christian dogma be sufficient to deny equality to fellow American citizens? This is using a good law to a bad purpose.

\


You change the subject means I win, huh?

You lost when you posted this ridiculous thread.

Reality is defined by actions, not by words.

The reality is that you keep slithering back because the truth burns you.

See ya' soon.

See ya, Dingbat.