First they came for gays....

What he said is exactly what freedom of speech means.

"Freedom of speech is the right to speak, write, and share ideas and opinions without facing punishment from the government."
freedom of speech | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

That is literally the first sentence in the Cornell Law link provided.

 

Where did you get the idea I was talking about the 1st A?

 

Read my post again., Like I said: it means way more than that. Waaaay more.

If you like short explanations, this one might not be complete either, but it's much closer to reality.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights#:~:text=worship and observance.-,Article 19,-Everyone has the
​

As you can see, the right EXISTS... no matter what any government does or fails to do. What governments CAN do, is "come for" it (like the OP says). And they can sometimes restrict it (like they have in Florida)... but it's only temporary because the right outlasts ANY government.

 

So to prove something in a discussion about our Constitution's first amendment, you use a generic UN declaration of human rights?

Yeesh.

I should not be surprised. This does not mean that you cannot face ramifications from non government sources for expressing your opinion. Of course you can. The UN declaration changes nothing in that regard; its words are literally hollow. The UN has no jurisdiction whatsoever for what happens in this country. As far as our constitution, it only applies to not facing punishment from the government.

 

Who the hell is talking about the Constitution?

Here we have the ultimate example of nearsightedness: to believe that rights exist ONLY in the U.S Constitution.

 

"They". being LW authoritarians, I presume.

 

The guy you were talking to Turtle. He was clearly referring to the first amendment. We can ask him if he was referring to the first amendment if youd like, but we already both know I am correct and that is precisely what he was discussing when he said freedom of speech, and we know that because he said the first amendments edict almost word for word.

This may be a difficult concept to grasp for a globalist like you that worships at the altar of the UN, but the UN is impotent. They mean nothing. Even if you take their declaration of a right to express oneself, that would clearly be directed at government interference.

 

How sad to see the world this way. Why not be happy for how much things have improved for these folks?

You're probably the guy who won 10M in the lottery and felt it was unfair because somebody else won more.

Just think how miserable you would have been 100, 500, 1000 years ago!!

 

Because Leftists believe that our rights are only protected from the government.

 

That's literally the opposite of what the post you quoted said. Golem said you have a right REGARDLESS of whether or not the government respects it. Please read. You won't. But I still have to ask.

@Golem please correct me if I'm wrong about your statement.

 

The left has insurrections all the time, they're just called 'mild and peaceful protests'.

 

Nope! At least I haven't seen any leftwingers forcing pregnancy to term on children as young as 10 how were raped, or anything like that. Only right-wing fascists.

 

Probably. But I wasn't.

 

Nothing about same-sex marriage. Plus

 

You presume wrong.

 

That's the point! The progress has been great. And now fascists and this Supreme Court want to take us back to 1950s. Do you want to wait until they start shooting for 1920s? That would certainly impact YOU.

Sad indeed!

 

First they came for the Gay's, and I stood up and fought back even though I'm straight because I've read the rest of that poem and I ain't no dummy.

 

You are 100% correct. But that poster appears be on a quest to see how many times he can be wrong before bedtime.

 

Sure there was. They were all related to same sex marriage in one capacity or another. Hence the title "47 Bible Verses About Same Sex Marriage"

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

 

Too bad that almost none of them follow that.

 

If you recognize that he "probably" was talking about the First Amendment when he said free speech, why then would you reply to a statement about the first amendment with a UN declaration without saying you switched to the UN declaration? It is safe to say when people say the right to free speech in a political chat room, they are talking about the first amendment. You know that as well as I.

This is the primary problem that I have with you where I always see you as being intellectually dishonest. It seems like you are always trying to fool people rather than have a productive conversation.

 

Why are you trying so hard to justify this? You're doing the same thing in the thread about the complaint that lead to the case being faked.

One might think you had ulterior motives here.

 

I have no idea what percentage of Christians adhere to this teaching, but as far as the USSC ruling that was being discussed, the very real distinction between person and ceremony is the only relevant point.

 

It isn't actually, but whatever.

 

It literally is. You'd know that if you had read. Why won't you read?