4 ms·

I have a hard time with this. The constitution doesn't say you have a right to water, electricity, internet service, sewer service, etc. Meanwhile the conserv

• gruez 3y ago
  >Meanwhile the conservatives in the US are saying that corporations have a right to choose who they serve based upon their religious beliefs. This gotcha only works when your opponent is pro business and you want them oppressed by businesses. However republicans are starting to turn anti-business. Take for instance the kerfuffle Ron DeSantis had with Disney.
  • bb88 3y ago
    Sure, conservatives have been pushing rights for conservative businesses. But once those religious rights have been granted, it's possible for that pendulum to swing the other way. Must a power company, say, give power to the NY State NAMBLA headquarters? That's the easy one. The more complex one is arguing that the insurrection was against your religious beliefs (because your religion espouses non-violence), and then the power company could say cut off power to offices held by congress people that supported the J6 criminals?
• ImJamal 3y ago
  >Meanwhile the conservatives in the US are saying that corporations have a right to choose who they serve based upon their religious beliefs. See the SCOTUS Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling on whether they must serve a gay couple. Unfortunately you are misinformed. The baker was quite willing to serve a gay couple. The Supreme Court never said the baker can not serve gays if he doesn't want to. What the Supreme Court said is a baker cannot be forced to engage in an activity (gay wedding) that he disagrees with even if it is as remote as a baking the cake. The baker made it clear if they wanted a plain cake he would have sold it to them.
• EarlKing 3y ago
  The constitution doesn't say a lot of things. The constitution is not the whole of the law, any more than the bible is the whole of religion. At the end of the day I think we've reached a point where the majority of the proletariat believe that they have a natural right to the freedom of thought and expression, meaning that they should not be subject to acts of force or fraud by private parties to interfere with that right. Further, the same believe that anyone engaged in commerce with the public should function as a public accommodation and offer their services to all and sundry. This just happens to be a very inconvenient opinion for bourgeoisie imperialists intent on silencing the proletariat to maintain their death grip on society. To put it simply: Maybe if you'd just let people gripe away in peace on their little gossip forums you wouldn't have so many problems in the world.
  • chonkerz 3y ago
    >let people gripe away in peace on their little gossip forums Funny way to describe "swatting campaigns and content that is illegal in many countries" but ok
    • EarlKing 3y ago
      > swatting campaigns Do you have evidence that Null knew about people organizing these on KiwiFarms and openly endorsed them or at least tolerated them? Do you have anything to confer upon him some kind of liability for the actions of his users other than "I don't like him so fuck him"? > illegal in many countries No one cares whether it's illegal in any random country. Other countries ban lots of things for utterly cretinous reasons. Attempting to characterize a gossip column as a "harassment" site isn't working. The EFF is openly commenting now because people like you who are pushing that narrative have failed, and have managed to piss off all the wrong people. You might want to consider rethinking your position.
      • chonkerz 3y ago
        They post people's home addresses. Calling it gossip is a lie.