To: LearsFool
He was merely exercising his First Amendment right to express an opinion Chick-Fil-A disagrees with, wasn't he? No. It was a verbal assault on some he perceived could not fight back.
12 posted on
08/03/2012 7:51:32 AM PDT by
MileHi
( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
To: MileHi
No. It was a verbal assault on some he perceived could not fight back.
You say "po-tay-to", he says "po-tah-to".
Hiding behind the First Amendment cuts both ways. Why? Because freedom is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
26 posted on
08/03/2012 8:19:30 AM PDT by
LearsFool
("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
To: MileHi
No. It was a verbal assault on some he perceived could not fight back. Where does the First Amendment end, and "verbal assault" begin? This Smith guy was clearly on the protected speech end of things - he did not physically threaten, violate any laws, etc.
Yes, he was a complete a**hole, and yes, he deserved to be fired and ridiculed. But let's not confuse things - under the First Amendment, he had every legal right to be a complete a**hole (just like his employer had every legal right to fire him for doing so).
To: MileHi
And, from what I understand, his company chose to exercise its right of Freedom of Association!
39 posted on
08/03/2012 8:36:09 AM PDT by
catman67
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson