39 ms·
>A society that obligates a private business to provide business to everyone, whether by cultural norm or by Congressional law, is not a free society. You're p
by Clubber 9y ago
>A society that obligates a private business to provide business to everyone, whether by cultural norm or by Congressional law, is not a free society.
You're probably the 5th person who has said this. Why do you think that's the only other option? Why give such an important issue so little consideration to alternatives?
- geofft 9y agoBecause the viewpoint I'm replying to seems to be the sort of First Amendment absolutism that worries that anyone being in any way inconvenienced from speaking in the time, place, forum, and manner of their choice is an immediate threat to a free society. If we're going to be absolutist about the First Amendment like that, it's illogical to be absolutist about free speech and not free assembly or association. I am personally, as you might guess, not a First Amendment absolutist, and I don't actually think that reasonable inconveniences on free speech cause us to lose the ideal of free speech, nor that reasonable inconveniences on free assembly cause us to lose the ideal of free assembly. I agree that there's room between the two extremes for free assembly - but I believe that because I also believe there's room between the two extremes for free speech.
- Clubber 9y agoThat's reasonable, thanks for explaining your position better. I read it as, "since you would be inconveniencing businesses, free speech doesn't matter." I'm pretty close to an absolutist, but I'm a near absolutist on all our rights. I'm also wearied by all the rights we've given away in just my lifetime. I said once on here and got down voted that, "I wish we had someone like the NRA to fight for all our other rights." It's discouraging that people didn't seem to appreciate that.