4 ms·

I'm not sure I understand the hypothetical. I am against members of any political party receiving unfair privileges. And I would be 100% ok with the removal of

by daenz 5y ago

I'm not sure I understand the hypothetical. I am against members of any political party receiving unfair privileges. And I would be 100% ok with the removal of those privileges, even if it was an explicit result of that person exercising their free speech. EDIT>> Oh I think I see now, you are comparing the introduction of a special tax hike on a group of people with removing special privileges from Disney. Those aren't the same at all.

dragonwriter 5y ago
How is an adverse change in government treatment not (aside from motivation) violating a matter of right not analogous to an adverse change in government treatment not (aside from motivation) violating a matter of right in the only way at all relevant to discussion of whether the fact that the issue is not (aside from motivation) violating a matter of right makes an adverse change in government treatment permissible?
- daenz 5y ago
  >adverse That's the key. I'm arguing that "adverse" doesn't mean "not receiving special unfair treatment."
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > That's the key. I'm arguing that "adverse" doesn't mean "not receiving special unfair treatment." “Adverse change” means a change in which the resulting condition is worse for the entity involved than the status quo ante. The justice of either the resulting state or the status quo ante is not relevant to whether the change is adverse. There is no dispute that: (1) Florida intends Disney to be worse off because of this change, and (2) Florida is motivated by Disney's exercise of its First Amendment rights in making this change. This combination is impermissible regardless of any other context, and is absolutely retaliatory regardless of any other context.
    - daenz 5y ago
      I think we've both made very clear points, we just continue to disagree. Thanks for being civil.

4 ms·

I'm not sure I understand the hypothetical. I am against members of any political party receiving unfair privileges. And I would be 100% ok with the removal of

by daenz 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago
How is an adverse change in government treatment not (aside from motivation) violating a matter of right not analogous to an adverse change in government treatment not (aside from motivation) violating a matter of right in the only way at all relevant to discussion of whether the fact that the issue is not (aside from motivation) violating a matter of right makes an adverse change in government treatment permissible?
- daenz 5y ago
  >adverse That's the key. I'm arguing that "adverse" doesn't mean "not receiving special unfair treatment."
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > That's the key. I'm arguing that "adverse" doesn't mean "not receiving special unfair treatment." “Adverse change” means a change in which the resulting condition is worse for the entity involved than the status quo ante. The justice of either the resulting state or the status quo ante is not relevant to whether the change is adverse. There is no dispute that: (1) Florida intends Disney to be worse off because of this change, and (2) Florida is motivated by Disney's exercise of its First Amendment rights in making this change. This combination is impermissible regardless of any other context, and is absolutely retaliatory regardless of any other context.
    - daenz 5y ago
      I think we've both made very clear points, we just continue to disagree. Thanks for being civil.