My point about the people going through court is not that it is OK. The point is that an injustice sometimes has to happen in order for the courts to rule on it. It is unfortunate, but true. I wish everyone would be more open to letting others speak their mind, but that isn’t the case. The fact is that despite all of the attempts in this country to limit speech, free speech is being reinforced.
You represented in the Philly case that this huge injustice occurred and all 11 of them went to jail for something that none of them did. And the case didn’t even go to trial.
Mr. Childs may have done several things that by themselves didn’t add up to enough to fire him, but when it came around to re-hire him there was a pretty much unanimous decision to not do so. Maybe the gay issue was the over-riding issue, but there were at least some other issues at work.
And yes, if you are allowing people to freely assemble you can’t all of a sudden stop. Not that a church shouldn’t be able to do so. But some of that kind of depends on how the pavilion has been used in the past. I agree with you that they should go to a place that isn’t owned by a church. However, things are not as black and white on these issues as you are portraying them.
Are you as much of a crusader for people to not be arrested for something like flag burning?
I did no such thing. Show me where I did so. Huge injustice? Yes. And since when is wrongful arrest and prosecution not an injustice? Besides, the fact that a law calling protected speech a crime exists is injustice enough, never mind if someone goes to jail.
Mr. Childs may have done several things that by themselves didn’t add up to enough to fire him,
Any evidence of that? Every account of him I've come across describes him as a very dedicated volunteer.
Maybe the gay issue was the over-riding issue, but there were at least some other issues at work.
If the overriding issue had been the fact that he came out of the closet or married a black woman, would you be copacetic with that? How about if he'd gotten fired right after he put a McCain sign on his lawn?
And yes, if you are allowing people to freely assemble you can’t all of a sudden stop. Not that a church shouldn’t be able to do so. But some of that kind of depends on how the pavilion has been used in the past.
So, the church would have to allow a Satanic wedding on the pavilion? If not, why not?
However, things are not as black and white on these issues as you are portraying them.
I think the state forcing people to violate their conscience is a black and white issue. It is wrong for the state to do so, every single time.
Are you as much of a crusader for people to not be arrested for something like flag burning?
1. I don't see the point of arresting flag burners. I understand the arguments that say it isn't speech, but I prefer to err on the side of caution. After all, bad speech can be countered with other speech, so someone who should be locked up will be checked. Moreover, flag burners simply reveal themselves as enemies of the nation. As painful and disgusting as it may be to see, it reveals who the scumbag traitors are.
2. Let's say I did favor arresting flag burners. Is there only one way to express disgust with America's policies? No. But if you own a pavilion that a couple wants to use to violate the teachings of your religion, there is only one way to follow the dictates of your religion: Say "no." So, I guess things aren't as black and white as you portrayed...
Let's see about you: Should a gay-owned tattoo parlor have to tattoo Leviticus 18:22 on a customer's arm, or can they refer the customer to another tat shop? Should a gay printer be forced by the state to print fliers for a "one man one woman" marriage rally?