LGBT Staff Won't Serve Christians

[martybegan]

How far would take this idiot logic? Seriously, if we had Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer running - would you dick around trying to figure out who agreed with you more???

Your viewpoint is driving the country into a hole. How low will you let it go before you wake up?

If we reached that point, it would be time for the barricades.

And spare me the "wake up" bullshit with your ivory tower "I'm outside the system unlike you, dupe" trope.

 

[Marener]

Actually it doesn't. you don't get to silence people because you don't want to listen to their speech in common areas.

It’s not a common area.

 

[martybegan]

It’s not a common area.

I can be. It acts like one. It's the modern version of the town square.

 

[dblack]

And spare me the "wake up" bullshit with your ivory tower "I'm outside the system unlike you, dupe" trope.

I'd really like to. But the system is broken, and you know it. Stop propping it up. Stop voting for bad candidates on purpose.

 

[Marener]

I can be. It acts like one. It's the modern version of the town square.

It’s not. If you want to seize private property for public use, the constitution is going to get in your way.

 

[martybegan]

I'd really like to. But the system is broken, and you know it. Stop propping it up. Stop voting for bad candidates on purpose.

Again, the only two ways to fix it are to ground up create another party to supplant one of the two, or revolution.

Otherwise you just support the party you like the LEAST.

 

[dblack]

It’s not. If you want to seize private property for public use, the constitution is going to get in your way.

It ought to, but it seldom does. The judges usually roll over on this kind of stuff. Especially if it benefits their party.

 

[martybegan]

It’s not. If you want to seize private property for public use, the constitution is going to get in your way.

How is the property "seized"? They still own it, they still profit from it, their servers are still theirs as are their offices, as well as their official posts and views.

 

[dblack]

Again, the only two ways to fix it are to ground up create another party to supplant one of the two, or revolution.

Otherwise you just support the party you like the LEAST.

Wow.... they really have you.

 

[dblack]

How is the property "seized"? They still own it, they still profit from it, their servers are still theirs as are their offices, as well as their official posts and views.

If you don't control something, you don't own it. If the government is telling them what to put on their website, the government owns the website.

 

[martybegan]

Wow.... they really have you.

Keep thinking that, and keep up with your smug stupid "I'm better and smarter than you" bullshit so prevalent in the fringe Libertarian kookisphere.

 

[martybegan]

If you don't control something, you don't own it. If the government is telling them what to put on their website, the government owns the website.

Once a bullet leaves the barrel you don't control it, but you sure as hell still own it, and the consequences.

They aren't telling them what to put, they would be telling them to either be a publisher and own it all, or follow the tenets of the 1st amendment.

 

[dblack]

Keep thinking that, and keep up with your smug stupid "I'm better and smarter than you" bullshit so prevalent in the fringe Libertarian kookisphere.

I'd rather not.

 

[dblack]

Once a bullet leaves the barrel you don't control it, but you sure as hell still own it, and the consequences.

They aren't telling them what to put, they would be telling them to either be a publisher and own it all, or follow the tenets of the 1st amendment.

You want state run social media. Why not just say it? Public square and all that shit.

 

[martybegan]

You want state run social media. Why not just say it? Public square and all that shit.

Regulated, not run.

 

[dblack]

Regulated, not run.

Of course, of course.

Republicans used to understand what "regulated" means.

 

[martybegan]

Of course, of course.

Republicans used to understand what "regulated" means.

I understand, the thing is you probably think building codes are somehow infringement.

 

[Marener]

How is the property "seized"? They still own it, they still profit from it, their servers are still theirs as are their offices, as well as their official posts and views.

If you declare it a common space, then it’s no longer private.

These are legally exclusive.

It’s like passing a law saying I get to drive your car anytime I want but you still own it and have to pay for gas. You don’t really own it.

 

[martybegan]

If you declare it a common space, then it’s no longer private.

These are legally exclusive.

It’s like passing a law saying I get to drive your car anytime I want but you still own it and have to pay for gas. You don’t really own it.

The virtual space is a commons, and created to be such. Once they asked for 230 protections they brought it on themselves.


So either they are a publisher, or they are not, and if they are not, then the space can be regulated.

 

[dblack]

I understand, the thing is you probably think building codes are somehow infringement.

They are, but they're very localized and easy to avoid or change. A federal takeover of social media is power the feds will never give back. And both of your idiot parties will use it to thwart the other.