SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> 1st Amendment
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1670340222

Message started by MnSpring on 12/06/22 at 07:23:42

Title: 1st Amendment
Post by MnSpring on 12/06/22 at 07:23:42

So if a social network, which is world wide, has the 'right' to censor, or say what they want.

Why does the; "Supreme Court hears case of Colorado wedding website refusing gay marriage work".

"... The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case involving a Colorado web design company whose desire to avoid doing work for same-sex weddings runs afoul of the state’s anti-discrimination law..."

So complaining that private companies aren't supporting a religion/belief position is, or is not the same as ?

"...Complaining that private companies aren't supporting the politician you like is pointless..."

So it is, or is it not required to change constitutional law to protect a Baker's rights ?

"...Until Constitutional law changes, or alterations are made to the 1st Amendment, these private companies do not have to protect your rights..."

So no one should complain about a Baker, doing what they think is correct ?

"...Or keep complaining that Twitter doesn't do what we think they should with their property..."

So a social media platform can 'do what they want'.
Yet a Baker can not.

Looks like some social medias can be as racist, as it want's, as long as the 'racist/predigest/one side political opinion', is controlled by UL, DFI FDS Socialists.

"...Again Twitter isn't a public free speech platform (even if they claim it is) that has 1st Amendment protection responsibilities, it is a private platform ..."

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/06/22 at 08:45:32

You should feel ashamed, you frikken logic Nazi

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by Eegore on 12/06/22 at 11:06:09

A Logic Nazi would understand the difference between discrimination and freedom of speech, and who is being sued for what.

Twitter has no obligation to protect your 1st amendment rights. The baker was not sued for 1st Amendment violations. The baker is the one who's 1st Amendment rights are being restricted.

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by pg on 12/06/22 at 13:08:34

https://coloradonewsline.com/2022/12/06/supreme-court-colorado-same-sex-marriage/

Here is a summary of the case, they are not anticipating ruling till June.

Best regards,

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by MnSpring on 12/06/22 at 14:05:39

1B3B39312C3B5E0 wrote:

A Logic Nazi would understand the difference between discrimination and freedom of speech ..."

Can one explain, the difference from a Baker, exercising ‘free speech’, Saying, up front, who they will serve and why.

And a Local media site, who say/imply they are totally fair, discriminating, by only allowing one political view.

“…You can’t deny someone access to a product or service based on who they are…”

Yet if a person denying assess, is a UL Socialist,
banning a Conservative, is perfectly OK ?

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by MnSpring on 12/06/22 at 14:12:21

"...Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said in a news conference following opening arguments that if someone opens their doors to the public, they must accommodate all comers..."

Hmmmm,
Did the 'twitter' platform open it's doors to the public ?

(or is it only the, 'public',
that are in Lock Step with the owner ?)

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/06/22 at 14:47:27

4B6B69617C6B0E0 wrote:

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by Serowbot on 12/06/22 at 14:50:30

They look the same if you stand on your head.

Quote:

First Amendment

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.

1st amendment does two things... Freedom of worship,... and freedom of speech. They're not the same thing.

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/06/22 at 15:44:53

I'm going to wait for E to explain that to you.

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by Eegore on 12/06/22 at 15:52:48

Can one explain, the difference from a Baker, exercising ‘free speech’, Saying, up front, who they will serve and why.

And a Local media site, who say/imply they are totally fair, discriminating, by only allowing one political view.

Can one stop pretending that the Baker is using "free speech" in his legal defense?

Hmmmm,
Did the 'twitter' platform open it's doors to the public ?

Hmm it did. It still doesn't have to protect your 1st Amendment free speech rights no matter how many bakers do not use the 1st Amendment free speech protections in their legal defense.

A Baker opens it's doors to the public and has no obligation to protect your "free speech" rights. Accommodating the public is about discrimination.

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by Eegore on 12/06/22 at 15:56:00

It's almost as if the government,having an obligation to Not screw me, asks someone else to screw me. That is what I see.
Just THANKS BE TO GAAAWD that you're here and able to explain the legalities, which I remember typing in the first place. But you can type it out some more. Just keep pretending it was all
Gee,Mr government, please Hayulp Us protect the public!! That was Not what they were doing.

Sure, so go sue the Government for infringing on your 1st Amendment rights. Stop saying Twitter has to let you use their platform. You have no rights to use their property no matter how much they misuse it. They have no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights.

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/06/22 at 17:10:29

Stop saying Twitter has to let you use their platform.

If you go back to the very beginning of the time when it became a topic, you will see I said
Private companies can do that.

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by Eegore on 12/06/22 at 18:34:49

MnSpring started this thread by freely mixing Free Speech and Religions Freedom using my posts as if they are the same Constitutional protections. A Logic Nazi would be able to see that the only way Free Speech applies to Twitter is if you have a right to use it.

The Baker is exercising his Religious Freedom. Twitter is not responsible for your Free Speech. Mixing the two because they are both private companies that both opened their doors to the public doesn't change how the law applies to the 1st Amendment.

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/06/22 at 19:07:46

Twitter is not responsible for

Say it again!!

The GOVERNMENT USING them is the problem.

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by Eegore on 12/06/22 at 19:46:34

The GOVERNMENT USING them is the problem.

I agree.

Which is why the issue is with the Government if we are going to apply "free speech" as MnSpring brought up. Not Twitter and not Bakers since both of them have no obligation to protect our 1st Amendment rights, no matter how many times he wants to try to make it sound like Twitter gets special privileges and a baker does not.

They aren't even the same legal issue.

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by MnSpring on 12/09/22 at 06:17:54

"...Not Twitter and not Bakers since both of them have no obligation to protect our 1st Amendment rights..."

So, if a small Baker says: 'They Believe in ... ... ...', they CAN. be sued ?

Yet a huge Social Media that, 'clams' it is the voice of all, Can say, 'They Believe in ... ... ...' they cannot ?

(Yes ANYBODY can sue anybody for anything, know that. and you know that is not the issue here. Don't deflect.)

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by Eegore on 12/09/22 at 07:35:21

"So, if a small Baker says: 'They Believe in ... ... ...', they CAN. be sued ?

Yet a huge Social Media that, 'clams' it is the voice of all, Can say, 'They Believe in ... ... ...' they cannot ?"

So you ask if they can or cannot be sued and then say they can. Which is it?

They aren't the same issue. You are mixing Religious protections with Free Speech protections and Discrimination.

The Baker was not sued for exercising Free Speech nor did the Baker use Free Speech in his legal defense. He used Religious Protections in his defense against a lawsuit for Discrimination.

Twitter was not sued for infringing on anyone's Religious Protections. People say Twitter is infringing on their Free Speech protections. Twitter has no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights, Religion or Speech.

Yes you can try to sue for anything. No the Baker and Twitter situation are not the same. These are different protections covered under one Amendment, The Baker and Twitter are accused of different things, and their defense are two different things.

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by Eegore on 12/09/22 at 07:42:26

Maybe this helps:

Baker + Customer + Discrimination = Religion defense. (No Free-speech)

Twitter + Customer + Free Speech violation = No Free Speech protections. (No Religion or Discrimination)

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by MnSpring on 12/10/22 at 08:16:11

Point remains: (Reworded to make it clearer)

Why

A Baker/s said/says: 'They Believe in ... ... ...', they are sued and that is backed by the government ?

A huge Social Media that, 'clams' it is the equal/fair voice of all, and says: 'They Believe in ... ... ...',, And is Proven they Censor with the help from the government. Are held harmless, and some defend their actions.

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by Eegore on 12/10/22 at 08:54:45

Are you asking why one side won, at first and the others did not? Like how the Baker lost the case initially and Twitter was not charged? For two totally different crimes?

A Baker/s said/says: 'They Believe in ... ... ...', they are sued and that is backed by the government ?

The lawsuit is not "backed by" the Government beyond the fact that "DISCRIMINATION" is the law the private parties used to sue the Baker and US Courts are not run by private companies.

A huge Social Media that, 'clams' it is the equal/fair voice of all, and says: 'They Believe in ... ... ...',, And is Proven they Censor with the help from the government. Are held harmless, and some defend their actions.

Twitter has no obligation to protect your "Free Speech" protections. They are NOT using Religious Freedom in their defense. Go sue the FBI.

Apples and Oranges.

You are using the phrase "They Believe in ... ... ..." in two completely different forms of context.

"I believe in Christianity, I am a Christian." - (Baker)

is Different than

"I believe I own my property, I can use it." - (Twitter)

One is a protected right, the other is not. The Baker was sued for discrimination. He has a Religious protection to defend that.

Twitter is accused of violating "Free Speech" protections, they do not have a responsibility to protect your 1st Amendment rights. You have no right to use Twitter.

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by MnSpring on 12/10/22 at 09:15:22

436361697463060 wrote:

"...
"I believe I own my property, I can use it." - (Twitter)

Yes and No.

Twitter does own it's own property, and they can use it.
Just that they TOTALLY LIED about how they used it.

Twitter said: (in effect), 'I will tell you, what you are suppose to believe', while at the same time telling you that, am fair and balanced.

Title: Re: 1st Amendment
Post by Eegore on 12/10/22 at 09:20:52

Twitter does own it's own property, and they can use it.
Just that they TOTALLY LIED about how they used it.

That's a false advertising issue. Not a 1st Amendment issue. Sue them for the right crime. Don't pretend Twitter's corporate belief structure is equal to Religion and that they are exercising some Constitutional protection. They aren't.

The Baker was sued by private parties for discrimination. The Baker used Religious protections in his defense. None of this applies to Twitter until somebody sues Twitter for discrimination.

If the private parties sued the Baker for violating their 1st Amendment rights then I would be saying the exact same thing I do about Twitter. Wrong crime - the Baker has no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights.