"Bigoted" means having a different opinion than you have?
Is that the Liberal-to-English definition?
Your post appears to have become a boomerang, huh?
Bigotry is an "opinion." Having a negative opinion about someone, or mistreating them, based solely on who they are is bigotry. graham is a bigoted dickhead. Maybe he can find some other venue to spew his filth.
Silencing those with whom you disagree goes beyond having an opinion.
And Liberals are infamous for doing just that.
Hatred is not just an "opinion." It is an attempt to hurt others.
These venues have no obligation to give this fraud a forum. Judging from the posted link, the city councils concluded that his speech would offend their community values. He can go elsewhere to spew his hatred. Perhaps a local auditorium would rent to him.
His continued attempts to frame his views as representing the entire Christian faith is absolutely sickening. No matter what the headline screams (Christianity BANNED in the UK), there have been no reports that St. Paul's, Westminster Abbey, and Canterbury have been shut down.
I'm made this point in a number of posts: Liberals like you believe in 'thought crimes'....any views contrary to theirs, the orthodoxy.
Conservatives don't demand uniform views.
Know who does?
Nazis.
Communists.
Fascists.
You.
Lysistrata is a leftist, not a liberal. Actual liberals believe in free speech. These extreme authoritarian leftists like her do not.
Well, in that case, there are no 'actual Liberals' left.
Any who vote Democrat support what that one posts.....they believe in thought crimes and ending free speech.
Hussein put an anti-free speech Liberal on the Supreme Court.
"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:
"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."
In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may
be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."
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."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes
it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia
5. “Earlier this week,
Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”
The
majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”
Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that
“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.
Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.
Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.
Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding.
The Founders intendedthe First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?
Sooo.....who put Obama in office....Liberals or Leftists?
