This is something the state is doing because the state feels that it should motivate the housing of non-rich people.
For this post of yours not to be the stupidest thing ever, you would have to believe that the government should feel like it should actively propagate hatred, bigotry, and misinformation.
Which, admittedly, is probably correct. You probably do wish the government would actively propagate hatred, bigotry, and misinformation. What I don’t get is why you think any decent person should agree with you.
This is a good one, too. It’s ridiculously facile, and handily supports your deeply-held belief system.
Much the same could have been said of the Union in 1861. Look at the extent to which the Northern States went to dominate the Confederacy with their “wokeness.”
[Some on the loony left drive me … maybe half as crazy as those on the loony right, but they tend to cause less objective harm than the batshit RW people. They just make it harder to buy incandescent light bulbs (except that was Bush 43), and two gallon soft drinks, and shit like that]
Poor comparison. No one asked the baker to make anything that he was not already willing to make.
It’s just that he was not willing to make it for specific people that he held in contempt for their lifestyle.
A better analogy for this would be that Amazon sells Dr. Seuss books, but won’t sell them to a SSM couple, as they don’t want to support that lifestyle.
Who is banning Green Eggs and Ham? Seriously, who?
I do think that you’d probably be in violation of your mall lease if you were selling Nazi memorabilia, though.
Ah, just diving down that slippery slope, are we. Here’s a hint, no it cannot.
Free exchange of ideas is essential to a healthy society. Freedom of speech, freedom of conscience. Don’t you agree?
Exactly. But you see why I thought it ridiculous to claim that government regulation implies some kind of socialist dystopia. We can argue about whether it’s justified in a particular case, but it’s nothing unusual.
I don’t think you understand what freedom of speech means. It does not mean “freedom to force other people to say what you want them to.”
I have the right to go outside and stand on the sidewalk and say whatever I want. I do not have the right to storm into a television studio and force them to put me on the air.
I have a right to hand-make a book and sell it on my personal website. I do not have the right to go to Amazon and force them to sell my book for me.
(As it happens, they do sell my book for me, but it’s not because I force them to. They could stop selling it at any time and be entirely within their rights to do so.)
They only get people fired, silence dissent, make the majority fear to speak their minds… all in the service of forcing us to accept their secular religion, complete with original sin and catechism…
The raving right are objectively worse, but the loony left are more dangerous because more powerful.
For the most part sure. But unless you want to hear my advocacy for my personal prolictivities, then you should probably put at least some sort of constraint on that.
However, I don’t see how freedom requires a platform.
You are the only one saying socialist dystopia here, so I’ll just write that off as your masterful takedown of your personal strawman, but as far as govt regulations, I do not agree that private businesses should be required to sell any and all goods that one offers for sale.
Your example of the govt having a compelling interest to try to combat homelessness is completely irrelevant to your desire to force private companies to be your platform for your ideas.
Problem with disingenuous fools like you is that anything to the right of Stalin is labeled hate speech. That’s why, normal people, actually work towards promoting individual liberty instead of working towards totalitarianism cloaked in wokeness.
It’s amazing (or maybe entirely predictable) how Demontree continually refuses to answer questions as to whether she thinks Amazon should be able to decline from selling books that advocate for the legalization of pedophilia, or for re-enslaving black people, etc. At most she’ll give some milquetoast “maybe” and then pretend it doesn’t matter.
But that’s the whole issue. If you think it’s okay for them to decline from selling pro-pedophilia books, then there’s no broad philosophical disagreement – it’s just about where to draw the line.
And that’s really what the debate has been all along. Some conservatives are pissed that the line has changed – that no longer was it, generally, just minorities, women, etc., who dared challenged the white supremacist and patriarchal status quo getting “canceled” – now conservative whites face the possibility of what they used to dish out.
Just another demonstration that the fundamental basis of modern conservatism is that there must be an in-group for whom the law protects but does not bind, and everyone else, whom the law binds but does not protect.