So you prefer a lifeless planet?Everything. The world would be a much better place without hate.
It is ok to hate you and your mother. It´s not ok to hit you or her without a good reason like self-defense.
So you prefer a lifeless planet?Everything. The world would be a much better place without hate.
So you prefer a lifeless planet?
Merely an example that better illustrates the issue at hand. The "protected" part here is the actor's right not to perform a service that expresses an idea that he disagrees with. The actor is entitled to reject such an offer, no matter who asks, and forcing him to perform would indeed be compelled speech, regardless of whether he endorses gay marriage or not. In fact, let's say that he does, but doesn't want to star in that movie because it goes against his image. You don't know why he refuses. What you do know is that he doesn't want to express the message you are tasking him with. He might agree to a different role, but he doesn't want this one, for whatever reason.I'm not sure I can get onboard with the idea of an actor that opposes gay marriage. It would be a terrible profession for someone anti gay.
This one doesn't, so you're in a pickle, director. Are you going to find another actor or are you going to court, because this diversion has gone long enough.Actors play parts, they love playing parts that are very different from their own views.
A world without hate is something I´d expect to come from a 5-year-old (or a cheesy Christmas song).You think the opposite of hate is a lifeless planet?
It is also human nature. Albert and Dan want Sophia. Sophia decides to be with Dan. Albert hates Dan and/or Sophia.
Only if you teach a sense of entitlement. It's poor teaching that makes people hate.
Whether it's from the people that created the religion that you believe, or your parents.
But it can stop.
Two children: one toy - hate.
Chimpanzees wage wars
Isn´t it remarkable that the US can only be kept together by bombing half the world
Why don´t you do something about it?
"Hate" comes in different forms and doesn't have to be necessarily a bad thing.Everything. The world would be a much better place without hate.
Alright, I love equality and acceptance. By extension, I absolutely hate discrimination and bigotry. So yeah, I'm perfectly fine with Twitter shutting down a fountain of hate speech and misinformation as well as a bakery not being able to refuse service based on personal bigotry.Hate and Love are two sides of passion. You can't bar one and keep the other. If you love something, then you will hate whatever threatens it.
Twitter provided a more than sufficient reason for the lock. It's not a ban.Is this also worthy of a ban? I'd love to know what rules this tweet broke. "BuT tWaTtEr Is A PrIvAtE cOmPaNy"
I can't wait to see where this ends, all you're doing is pushing those on the fringe right, the middle and even some common sense lefties towards the mainstream, this will blow up in your face eventually. Enjoy your echo chambers.
View attachment 241167
Twitter provided a more than sufficient reason for the lock. It's not a ban.
I can't wait to see where this ends, all you're doing is pushing those on the fringe right, the middle and even some common sense lefties towards the mainstream, this will blow up in your face eventually. Enjoy your echo chambers.
Twitter provided the rule that was broken.They dont need to provide any reason. That's the point, the capital isn't washington its Silicon Valley, they control everything you see online, all the (mis)information. But again, he broke no rules. This is just liberal companies doing whatever they want, of course you don't have a problem with it because you agree with those dictators.
Exactly. And yet, this doesn't stop people from saying it's arbitrary and that Trump is being personally targeted.Twitter provided the rule that was broken.
We were actually arguing about a similar UK case, but yes, the Masterpiece Cakeshop case ruling was made in a way that sort of bypassed the entire issue, presumably because they didn't want to set a precedent.Woah, woah, woah.
I think a lot of people talking about Masterpiece Cakeshop are really missing the point that case made. It wasn't a landmark case and isn't as broad as many of you are making it out to be.
Basically, the cakeshop didn't want to make the custom cake for that couple and then the Colorado Civil Rights Commission fined them for being discriminatory. But what the Supreme Court found (in a 7-2 decision) was only that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the first amendment by not remaining religiously neutral when making its decision.
Neither the opinion of the court nor the concurrences definitively addressed the issue of whether Masterpiece Cakeshop violated the Constitution. Just that the Civil Rights Commission did in punishing them.
I briefly studied this case in Constitutional Law II in law school. I say briefly because it was not as broad as people make it out to be.
Your prediction isn't wrong, but take a moment to marvel at them. This is my life, Mag Staff.I predict that the most recent couple of posts are going to be removed before long. You both might want to calm down.