I don’t follow athletes because I want to hear their thoughts on political topics. There is just no reason for this.
there's no reason, unless you're a communist or a fascist, to try to regulate or restrict the legal and free speech of private citizens
If I follow a car repair channel and they start doing cooking or stock market picks I’m going to unsubscribe. If I want politics I’ll follow Chuck Todd.
I know there are a handful of posters here that love to inject politics in to every thread. You are not normal and frankly tiresome.
there's no reason, unless you're a communist or a fascist, to try to regulate or restrict the legal and free speech of private citizens
If I follow a car repair channel and they start doing cooking or stock market picks I’m going to unsubscribe. If I want politics I’ll follow Chuck Todd.
I know there are a handful of posters here that love to inject politics in to every thread. You are not normal and frankly tiresome.
then unsubscribe. But telling others what they "should" or "should not" say is not appropriate
This is not a thoughtful argument. Everyone agrees that if you own a business, you can’t deny service to a person based on their race, whether you “consent” or not.
That is not what the ruling is about at all. It doesn't allow business owners to deny service to anyone. It allows business owners to retain their free speech rights and not have to actively communicate a message they disagree with.
Do you think someone who believes in legal abortion should be forced to design a web site for the local pro life group?
Check out her IG post where she’s giving the finger. Yet she fails to understand the SCOTUS ruling. Typical of someone like her striving to remain relevant.
then unsubscribe. But telling others what they "should" or "should not" say is not appropriate
That is exactly what happened to bud lite. Like it or not Molly is a brand trying to make money off her image and likeness. She is relevant solely because of her running. Using her platform to randomly vent about politics is going to be off putting too many. Even if you agree with her.
It was a made up case and, as someone who has been a lawyer for 45 years, I think it makes a mockery of the judicial system.
You must not have any experience with constitutional litigation. There’s a reason none of the dissenters had an issue with standing. This was a straightforward pre enforcement challenge. You can always sue to establish your rights before violating a statute and risking prosecution, except in rare cases such as where statutes are moribund and the state has disavowed intent enforcement. The state here affirmed that it intended to enforce against the designer if she did what she wants to do. That’s always enough for Article III standing. Even more in the 1A context which has relaxed standing requirements to avoid chilling speech.
Correct, I do not. I appreciate your post.
I still believe that the case was based on dishonesty because of the use of the fake email from 'Stewart'. As you have pointed out, it could have been brought anyway.
I don’t follow athletes because I want to hear their thoughts on political topics. There is just no reason for this.
Since your concerned so much with her "brand", her largest following is likely with younger females....so if she offends some old dudes on her instagram, I'm sure she's ok with that. Besides, does Taylor Swift's vocal support of LGBTQ and pro-choice hurt her brand? She should just shut up and sing right?
Its apparent you have sensitive feelings, and I'm sure you rant about "freedom of speech" when when it comes to some conservative retread telling the world how their rights are being infringed (and not getting the irony), but if you don't like it, leave. Go follow Lauren Bobert or MTG so you can listen to their pure messages of family values while they're both in the process of divorce after cheating on their respective husbands.