Fred Meyers bans gun magazines

[sobo]

I think that's more of Zuckerberg's politics causing the disappearings than the gub'mint's involvement, but I get your point...

The only "free speech" allowed/tolerated is the Left's speech. By Leftist reckoning, all other/opposing viewpoints are inherently heretical...

 

[Certaindeaf]

I think that's more of Zuckerberg's politics causing the disappearings than the gub'mint's involvement, but I get your point...

The only "free speech" allowed/tolerated is the Left's speech. By Leftist reckoning, all other/opposing viewpoints are inherently heretical...

Exactly. Collusion with the government or not, it is, in this case, much more powerful than the government.

 

[Diamondback]

I am glad you clarified "gun magazine" as I thought that FM was removing gun magazines as in Magpul, Glock, etc. off their shelves.

Nope, anything not a Klintoon Klip is gone already and those are next.

What's so hard for these stupid f***tards to understand about "once you pay the Danegeld, you'll NEVER be rid of the Dane"?! Are they dumber than a f***ing retarded monkey or something?

 

[sobo]

Yes. Yes, they are. And they have the ear of the Political Establishment, which is extremely disconcerting...

 

[The Heretic]

If the government blocked Breitbart, or Fox, or this site, or the NRA or GOA sites, or sites like that, then yes, that is censorhship that violates the 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.

Otherwise, no private venue must carry any content on its venue.

The grey area is when the means to get to that venue is restricted because of its content.

Oh look! Trump appoints an FCC guy who is trying to do just that!

Hey Trump people - what's up with that?

 

[sobo]

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.

Otherwise, no private venue must carry any content on its venue.

So, lets say a baker is in business for himself. Therefore, it is a private venue. By extension of your statement immediately above, we can therefore state that "No private baker must carry any content in his bakery." Read another way, "No baker must bake any cake within his bakery." Ergo, the baker doesn't have to bake any cake that he does not want to bake.

That being said, how does one square the text emphasized first above in the case of a baker and a gay wedding couple? Does the gay couple sue the baker to make the cake for them and therefore trample the baker's 1A right to his free exercise of religion? Or does the baker get to freely exercise his religious beliefs and therefore NOT bake the cake for the gay couple?

I think all of us here know what the outcome of this case was. We had a similar case here in SE Washington in regards to a florist and a different gay couple getting married. I'll let you take a guess as to how that worked out...

My point here is not to take sides or bash gay people or Christian belief systems. My point is that there are competing rights at odds with each other here, and how does one square those odds so that all rights are respected? The gay couple believes that they are being discriminated against by the baker on account of their cherished lifestyle. The baker believes that he is being forced to perform a task that is against his cherished religious beliefs, and therefore his lifestyle is being disrespected. How does one fix this?

 

[Flopsweat]

Was it a 1st Amendment violation? Probably not. Was it right? Hell no!

 

[sobo]

Both the baker and the florist were denied the free exercise of their religion by being compelled by the Court to comply with a directive that was contrary to their religious belief system. I think one could reasonably argue that that was a violation of their 1A right to free exercise of religion, which was, in fact, their defense in both cases. By the outcome of both cases, one could reasonably conclude going forward that religious protection is no longer a guaranteed right under the Constitution...

 

[SHPD_Retired]

They are shutting down their gun counters anyway so this is no surprise.

 

[Koda]

the cake analogy doesn't apply here because gun owners are not a protected class of people.

 

[sobo]

I'm assuming that you're intentionally injecting a bit of sarcasm here.

As I understand it, we still have a 2A (albeit it is under a rampant, national attack)...

 

[The Heretic]

Both the baker and the florist were denied the free exercise of their religion by being compelled by the Court to comply with a directive that was contrary to their religious belief system. I think one could reasonably argue that that was a violation of their 1A right to free exercise of religion, which was, in fact, their defense in both cases. By the outcome of both cases, one could reasonably conclude going forward that religious protection is no longer a guaranteed right under the Constitution...

What if your religion said that you can't serve people with dark skin or people who are muslims, or who are women?

That you should not rent housing to them or sell them food or if you are a lawyer, you cannot defend them in criminal court? What if you are a doctor and you said your religion prohibited you from giving them needed medical care?

Nothing, not even Natural Rights, is black and white. There are grey areas.

Personally, I think it should come down to essential services/etc. and the law is pretty clear on those; you cannot deny housing, or medical care, or other services or jobs to someone based on their religion, ethnicity or gender or age.

Is a wedding cake an essential service? No. But as said, it was a pretty bubble-gummed up thing to do.

 

[The Heretic]

the cake analogy doesn't apply here because gun owners are not a protected class of people.

Although we are a minority, and it is our rights we are talking about.

 

[Koda]

I'm assuming that you're intentionally injecting a bit of sarcasm here.

As in, we still have a 2A, but it is currently under a rampant, national dispute...

no sarcasm...

the 2A is a right. Not a class of people.

 

[The Heretic]

I'm assuming that you're intentionally injecting a bit of sarcasm here.

As I understand it, we still have a 2A (albeit it is under a rampant, national attack)...

Irony

 

[Koda]

Although we are a minority, and it is our rights we are talking about.

it feels like we are, but are we really? theres like 3 million guns in the hands of private citizens here...

 

[sobo]

@Heretic: I do not dispute what you are saying. Discrimination is wrong, no matter what side you come down upon. But how does one square competing acts of discrimination between different (protected) classes?

 

[sobo]

Irony

That works, too...

 

[Certaindeaf]

I just read that they stopped carrying caulk guns! come on, what the heck!


lol, not really

 

[sobo]

I just read that they stopped carrying caulk guns! come on, what the heck!


lol, not really

Crikey! What's next? Hot glue guns???