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

[Kuciwalker]

No one is stopping them from saying what they want to say.

Why is it an example of freedom to be able to say what they want to say, but not an example of freedom to react to what they say?

Interestingly enough your conception of free speech as freedom from prior restraint rather than freedom from future punishment is one that had some currency around the time of the American Revolution. The debate was eventually resolved in favor of the latter because future punishment can (by design) have a strong chilling effect that is effectively similar to prior restraint.

Imagine if you could marry another man, but we would just lock you in prison afterwards. You would reasonably object that your rights were infringed.

If somebody comes on your property and insults you endlessly, are you not infringing on his freedom of speech if you kick him off for it?

We generally aren't concerned with private parties restricting "freedom of speech". Freedom of speech is not inalienable (i.e. you can "sell" your freedom of speech) because making it so would excessively restrict other general freedoms.

[Elok]

How can people democratically ban gay marriage but people can't democratically ban Chick-fil-A? Are individual rights really less important than the rights to do business?

Both are bad; however, one is an unfairly selective privilege while the other effectively abolishes the First Amendment by giving the government the power to harm, and even potentially ruin, the livelihood of those who hold/express unpopular opinions.

[Guynemer]

Can someone explain to Elok that giving gay people equal marriage rights does not force churches to marry gay couples?

Pretty sure he understands that, chief.

[Guynemer]

The right to marry your loved one and make medical decisions for them if they're incapacitated is far more important to me than the right for Chick-fil-A to sell **** in Boston.

Chick-fil-A can't take that right from you; they are a private enterprise. This is quite distinct from the government.

[Elok]

Pretty sure he understands that, chief.

Yeah, but I could have been more clear about it; I said something to the effect of: "'freedom' has only been used as an argument against gay marriage by ministers who fear they'll be forced to recognize said marriages." I didn't say anything about the legitimacy of those fears, though.

[Elok]

No one supports true "free speech" except for extremists. There are tons of free speech limits in the US and Canada.

Canada happens to have one where inciting violence against an identifiable minority group is not permitted. I do support that.

I also support slander, libel, public-panic, etc laws. So do most Americans. Most Americans, therefore, oppose free speech. Right?

All rights necessarily have limitations; this doesn't mean they aren't rights. In general, your rights are limited where they might infringe on the rights or safety of others--hence all the examples you mentioned. Except the human-rights tribunal business, which IIRC did not require anything like reasonable proof that violence had, in fact, been incited. Basically it's illegal to express certain ugly opinions on the grounds that they might theoretically inspire someone to do something bad. Even if the opinions make no mention of violence. You didn't seem to see how this was bad, provided it couldn't be/hadn't been used against views you didn't personally find repulsive.

EDIT: Okay, slander/libel isn't exactly about rights or safety, but it's not a matter of opinion. Basically you aren't free to knowingly spread falsehoods about private citizens in public, and since such things can be used to ruin someone's life, we're fine with restricting that too.

[loinburger]

How dare the Boston major exercise his freedom of speech and thereby violate Chick-Fil-A's freedom of speech. Or are we outraged about something less stupid?

[Asher]

Chick-fil-A can't take that right from you; they are a private enterprise. This is quite distinct from the government.

Err?
I'm not concerned with Chick-fil-A taking away my rights.

I'm more concerned by the arbitrary conception of freedom most people here have, and genuinely amused by the blindness to it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

How dare the Boston major exercise his freedom of speech and thereby violate Chick-Fil-A's freedom of speech. Or are we outraged about something less stupid?

I think they've moved onto Chicago now.

[The Mad Monk]

x-2'd

What about the Chicago mayor?

[Asher]

All rights necessarily have limitations; this doesn't mean they aren't rights. In general, your rights are limited where they might infringe on the rights or safety of others--hence all the examples you mentioned. Except the human-rights tribunal business, which IIRC did not require anything like reasonable proof that violence had, in fact, been incited. Basically it's illegal to express certain ugly opinions on the grounds that they might theoretically inspire someone to do something bad. Even if the opinions make no mention of violence.

Canadians tend to be far more adept than Americans at comprehension.

A pastor describing the "homosexual menace" that is "after your children" and calling for the community to oppose them is pretty much inciting action against them.

Incidentally, a gay teen was beaten within a week of its publication by a group of kids hurling homophobic insults. Pure coincidence, amiright?

Things don't need to be explicitly literal for the message to be conveyed. What other purpose would such a publication serve but to infringe on the personal rights and liberties of gay Canadians?

[Guynemer]

Err?
I'm not concerned with Chick-fil-A taking away my rights.

I'm more concerned by the arbitrary conception of freedom most people here have, and genuinely amused by the blindness to it.

I'm concerned with your misunderstanding of what we Yanks are saying.

Chick-fil-A can say and advocate whatever the **** they want. They infringe on absolutely no rights by doing so. No one has the right not to be offended.

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).

[Al B. Sure!]

[Asher]

I'm concerned with your misunderstanding of what we Yanks are saying.

Chick-fil-A can say and advocate whatever the **** they want. They infringe on absolutely no rights by doing so. No one has the right not to be offended.

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 democratically elected city government of Chicago cannot suppress the freedom of speech of the CFA rednecks. They can still say whatever the **** they want.

The democratically elected city government has the right to regulate its businesses, including choosing who to grant business licenses to.

Freedom cuts both ways. I don't give a **** what your constitution says. If another American conflates the constitution with freedom I'm going to go postal.

America already has set many precedents that elected representatives can restrict the freedoms of its citizens and businesses.

[Hauldren Collider]

The democratically elected city government of Chicago cannot suppress the freedom of speech of the CFA rednecks. They can still say whatever the **** they want.

The democratically elected city government has the right to regulate its businesses, including choosing who to grant business licenses to.

Freedom cuts both ways. I don't give a **** what your constitution says. If another American conflates the constitution with freedom I'm going to go postal.

No one is conflating the constitution with freedom. Not one single person here. You seem to think that because the constitution does not guarantee all the rights you think it should (basically, you think it is imperfect in certain ways) that we should ignore what it actually says.

Furthermore, there is no difference between regulating businesses based on what they say and regulating what they say. Your failure to understand this is puzzling.