emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
danielpalos
Seems to defend govt policy requiring businesses to post LGBT same sex images if they post traditional marriage images of heterosexual couples, and banning the religious expression or explanation of the owner beliefs about marriage.
Lawsuit pending argues this violates freedom of speech, religious free expression or exercise, or both by fining or shutting down businesses.
danielpalos
Argument is the Accommodations law supercedes and does not allow this kind of "free speech" that is interpreted as "advertising discrimination against LGBT customers"
I argue that Haleel, Kosher, Vegan or Vegetarian businesses are free to advertise they only serve products they believe in and do not serve products that violate their beliefs. They are not discriminating against Customers, because Customers of any faith identity or affiliation can receive the same goods or services that the business provides/advertises. And NO CUSTOMERS of any creed, class or kind can get services they do NOT provide. The businesses discriminate by ***WHICH KIND of services they offer, and advertise,**** independent of the Customers.
danielpalos
Keeps arguing this is only an Accommodations issue, but since WEBSITE CONTENT is involved, I argue this becomes Govt regulating free speech and forcing content or banning it under penalty of law, which is unconstitutional.
Finally I asked danielpalos
If your prochoice/LGBT website was required by govt to post prolife/conservative content, wouldn't you
argue that violates freedom of speech and belief?
danielpalos Changed the angle as a segregation issue, but my question is what if YOU were the one being forced by govt to post the opposite views (like prolife or conservative) on your company website. Wouldn't you argue govt has no right to regulate, require or punish free speech?
Last I checked, when prolife advocates tried to force prochoice programs to "include" information against abortion, this was also protested.
I challenge danielpalos
To answer the question, wouldn't you argue to defend your free speech from website regulations forcing you to post content from opposing views or beliefs?
Instead of taking the Fifth....
Seems to defend govt policy requiring businesses to post LGBT same sex images if they post traditional marriage images of heterosexual couples, and banning the religious expression or explanation of the owner beliefs about marriage.
Lawsuit pending argues this violates freedom of speech, religious free expression or exercise, or both by fining or shutting down businesses.
danielpalos
Argument is the Accommodations law supercedes and does not allow this kind of "free speech" that is interpreted as "advertising discrimination against LGBT customers"
I argue that Haleel, Kosher, Vegan or Vegetarian businesses are free to advertise they only serve products they believe in and do not serve products that violate their beliefs. They are not discriminating against Customers, because Customers of any faith identity or affiliation can receive the same goods or services that the business provides/advertises. And NO CUSTOMERS of any creed, class or kind can get services they do NOT provide. The businesses discriminate by ***WHICH KIND of services they offer, and advertise,**** independent of the Customers.
danielpalos
Keeps arguing this is only an Accommodations issue, but since WEBSITE CONTENT is involved, I argue this becomes Govt regulating free speech and forcing content or banning it under penalty of law, which is unconstitutional.
Finally I asked danielpalos
If your prochoice/LGBT website was required by govt to post prolife/conservative content, wouldn't you
argue that violates freedom of speech and belief?
danielpalos Changed the angle as a segregation issue, but my question is what if YOU were the one being forced by govt to post the opposite views (like prolife or conservative) on your company website. Wouldn't you argue govt has no right to regulate, require or punish free speech?
Last I checked, when prolife advocates tried to force prochoice programs to "include" information against abortion, this was also protested.
I challenge danielpalos
To answer the question, wouldn't you argue to defend your free speech from website regulations forcing you to post content from opposing views or beliefs?
Instead of taking the Fifth....
Last edited: