Posted on 09/16/2025 5:20:06 PM PDT by DoodleBob
Right. Because it all comes down to you’re willingness to work for them, when you don’t have to. Same with visiting other people’s homes. You have to visit, so you’re visiting is consent to agreeing to their limitations.
What if I yell “fire” in a burning crowded theater?
A liberal will call this hate speech, the people don’t want to be upset to hear that the heat and smoke are from a fire.
Good analogy.
No. The First Amendment guarantees that you can SPEAK out against the government without repercussions. It also bars government from establishing or controlling religion. That is all, that is enough.
It is speech that people in positions of power, influence, or authority hate.
And I have "always" argued that your right to wave your fist around ends some distance from the tip of my nose. A clear attempt to harm me justifies a self-defense response. I am not obligated to wait until actual harm has occurred before defending myself.
“I can only tell you what the Courts have ruled as far as the Constitution goes. In your personal space, it does not apply if you don’t want it to. “
So one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
I still say there’s got to be more to it than that.
I said within reason. If you come to my house, I can insist on topics that we will not discuss. I can tell you to leave your gun at home. I can impose limitations on your rights in my house and you can decide if you will come over.
“I said within reason. “
That you did...but not in a post to me. That does cast a different light.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.