How does this happen? Chick-fil-A branded as anti-gay?

[kentonio]

WTF do you mean, socially acceptable? The government allowing individuals to speak does not constitute an endorsement of their speech. We let Nazis, the KKK and the WBC spew their crap all they want, and all three are pariahs outside their own small, inbred circles. As for alienation, that's beside the point. Person A's feelings do not, by themselves, justify muzzling Person B.

You've had some pretty prominent figures in one of your two national parties making outrageous statements about both homosexuals and muslims, do you not think that might constitute 'socially acceptable'? If a senator, or governor or congressman publically makes bigoted statements, then a teenager or schoolkid is going to considering the same behaviour out of line?

[MrFun]

Pretty sure he understands that, chief.

Well chief, I don't know why Elok implied the same in his post then.

[MrFun]

The government can NOT deny them that right. They also can NOT deny you the right to marry (ideally, some parts of the country are still catching up to this).

The mayor of Boston is not denying CFA's executives' right to free speech.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Is it actually regulating the business, or just a mayor blowing off steam? I've not yet seen any evidence of business regulation.

Maybe that's another part of the issue that these epically professional news outlets have chosen not to share.

It definitely seems like a political move by the Mayor of Boston. Gets him some great press in his town.

[MrFun]

By standing up for ******s.

[Elok]

No, it is the sense of freedom. Again, you do not understand. How could you? This isn't in the constitution.

No, that isn't freedom. I'm not going to be a totally pedantic ass and cite a dictionary here, but freedom generally refers to a state of less-limited options, a lack of external constraints on your actions, things like that. With the possible exception of the marriage bit, none of the things you cited had anything more than a very indirect connection to that. Some of them actually entailed considerable constraints on others. I'm not saying all those constraints were bad, but calling constraints "freedom" is borderline-Orwellian silliness. Use words properly, for crying out loud. Not everything that's free is good, no, but likewise not everything that's good is free.

Americans are obsessed with guns, revolutions, and the threat of big government. They do this while they kill themselves with guns, have nothing close to a revolution, and have a massive ****ing government. Everything seems to equate to "but what if we need to overthrow a tyrant?"

If you need to overthrow a tyrant, who the **** cares what the laws are?

All of that has squat to do with me. I argued against the second amendment myself in the Batman-massacre thread, less than a week ago. Nor am I a conservative, let alone a small-government one.

The right is to personal security. That right does not come from the US constitution.

If rights are not granted by a government, they cannot be said to exist in any meaningful sense--except as another way of phrasing moral statements. If some Canadian constitution or charter grants that right, well, that too is nothing to me, any more than ours is to you.

[Elok]

You've had some pretty prominent figures in one of your two national parties making outrageous statements about both homosexuals and muslims, do you not think that might constitute 'socially acceptable'? If a senator, or governor or congressman publically makes bigoted statements, then a teenager or schoolkid is going to considering the same behaviour out of line?

We were talking about Canadian hate-speech laws, not idiotic GOP statesmen. I said suffering these idiots to speak does not, by itself, render said speech acceptable, because it's well-known that we let most any loathsome troll express whatever vile sentiments he pleases unless he poses a perfectly clear danger to others. Are you asking me if I want it to be legal to gag politicians who say stupid stuff like that?

[Asher]

No, that isn't freedom.

It is. Even by the dictionary definition there. Perhaps this is too philosophical for you?

All of that has squat to do with me. I argued against the second amendment myself in the Batman-massacre thread, less than a week ago. Nor am I a conservative, let alone a small-government one.

You cannot see how this applies to the first amendment, too?

Why would you allow hateful bigots a public forum to recruit others? The only reasonable explanation is a potential revolution. "What if some farmer in Saskatchewan wants to overthrow the government? Clearly he wouldn't be able to with Canada's laws, as he would never break them for such an act!"

If rights are not granted by a government, they cannot be said to exist in any meaningful sense--except as another way of phrasing moral statements.

Hey, no ****?
What do you think this conversation is about? Was I not being at all clear when I kept trying to separate the concept of freedom from the legislative/legal systems? Am I being too ambiguous?

[kentonio]

We were talking about Canadian hate-speech laws, not idiotic GOP statesmen. I said suffering these idiots to speak does not, by itself, render said speech acceptable, because it's well-known that we let most any loathsome troll express whatever vile sentiments he pleases unless he poses a perfectly clear danger to others. Are you asking me if I want it to be legal to gag politicians who say stupid stuff like that?

Sure, we have hate speech laws too and they work pretty well most of the time. They can be taken too far and I am the first to critisize them when they are, but I have no passion for the idea of completely free speech. As we've established many times in the past, America doesn't allow completely free speech anyway, so it is a matter of degrees for all of us.

[Asher]

We were talking about Canadian hate-speech laws, not idiotic GOP statesmen. I said suffering these idiots to speak does not, by itself, render said speech acceptable, because it's well-known that we let most any loathsome troll express whatever vile sentiments he pleases unless he poses a perfectly clear danger to others. Are you asking me if I want it to be legal to gag politicians who say stupid stuff like that?

I do not think you understand social psychology if you cannot see how authority figures expressing opinions to target other members of society can adversely affect those other members of society.

For all of the hysteria Americans shout about Canadian hate-speech laws, what do we have to show for it? We have a country renowned for being welcoming and polite, likable around the world, true multi-culturalism, financially sound, and the best hockey players on the planet.

Contrast that with America. I don't even need to enumerate the issues, do I?

[Flubber]

No business is required to serve someone. .

In Canada this is a fundamentally incorrect statement if the reasons for refusing to serve the person are due to race, religion or sexual orientation to Name three. Macdonalds would commit a human rights violation each and every time it refused to sell a big Mac to a Christian.

Personally I Am pro gay marriage but think this mayor is nuts and far outside his jurisdiction to talk about refusing restaurants owned by gay marriage opponents. Where does that type of policy end??

[Elok]

Sure, we have hate speech laws too and they work pretty well most of the time. They can be taken too far and I am the first to critisize them when they are, but I have no passion for the idea of completely free speech. As we've established many times in the past, America doesn't allow completely free speech anyway, so it is a matter of degrees for all of us.

Well, if such rules were applied to politicians they would be abused before the ink was dry. And not by the Democrats; they'd try to abuse them, sure, but they are not known as the party of competent political maneuvering. The GOP would run circles around them.

[Hauldren Collider]

For all of the hysteria Americans shout about Canadian hate-speech laws, what do we have to show for it? We have a country renowned for being welcoming and polite, likable around the world, true multi-culturalism, financially sound, and the best hockey players on the planet.

Then how come all the Canadian teams suck? Even the hockey players have the good sense to move to America

[Elok]

It is. Even by the dictionary definition there. Perhaps this is too philosophical for you?

If we're going by your disdain for philosophy, I guess you could say that. You're talking gibberish. The things you said are, in many cases, the exact opposite of "freedom." You would do better to claim your country is more free because it has more beavers or something.

You cannot see how this applies to the first amendment, too?

Why would you allow hateful bigots a public forum to recruit others? The only reasonable explanation is a potential revolution. "What if some farmer in Saskatchewan wants to overthrow the government? Clearly he wouldn't be able to with Canada's laws, as he would never break them for such an act!"

I honestly cannot say I have ever heard anybody express such a deranged sentiment, no. The general idea is that it's just not right in and of itself to gag people and we shouldn't draw the line any farther than absolutely, unequivocally necessary. Sometimes we use a slippery-slope argument, but more often it just goes against what we believe in to muzzle somebody we disagree with. In the specific context of hateful speech, that is. Freedom of speech/the press in general is simply essential to prevent society from degenerating into a corrupt, oppressive ****hole, and I don't imagine you disagree with me there.

Hey, no ****?
What do you think this conversation is about? Was I not being at all clear when I kept trying to separate the concept of freedom from the legislative/legal systems? Am I being too ambiguous?

If you're going to talk about morals, just say morals. Saying rights gives the misleading impression that you're talking about something that has to do with the law. They're two totally distinct things. I think gossip is immoral, for example, but you don't see me pushing to outlaw the tabloids.

[Al B. Sure!]

Hey Asher, Flyers > Flames