what are you thoughts on this?.
i find this alarming because jones was very outspoken and had great guests on discussing topics most other media outlets wouldn't go near.. the fact that many have restricted him access to their medium what does this say on our freedoms of speech?.
Aannnnd it’s getting worse.
Robert Spencer (not to be confused with the leftist racist Richard Spencer) had his patreon account closed because of demands from MasterCard!
A false flag attempt on Molyneux’s channel today. The strikes came from videos that you wouldn’t even suspect are an issue. Incredible. Take down didn’t work as fans started messaging YouTube group on Twitter.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
When you provide a service or product to the general public you loose some of your individual liberty right?
No. Please tell me why his property is no longer his property just because he owns a business.
This is the problem we run into with protected classes of people. What happens when one protected class clash with another? That’s a clear indication the entire idea should be thrown away. Why can’t we just have freedom of association? He doesn’t want to make the cake. Whatever the reason is irrelevant ... just go somewhere else.
what are you thoughts on this?.
i find this alarming because jones was very outspoken and had great guests on discussing topics most other media outlets wouldn't go near.. the fact that many have restricted him access to their medium what does this say on our freedoms of speech?.
Interesting perspective: Tom Woods and Michael Malice. I see this happening with bitchute.com now.
Another interesting video (only 9 min) from YouTuber Law:
It seems like as long as section 230 of Communication and Decency Act is Law, it will near impossible to fight back legally. But this might be OK - see first vid.
what are you thoughts on this?.
i find this alarming because jones was very outspoken and had great guests on discussing topics most other media outlets wouldn't go near.. the fact that many have restricted him access to their medium what does this say on our freedoms of speech?.
@Wasanelder: Is that Pelosi? It looks like Pelosi...
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
Good Lord, these people are pure scoundrels.
what are you thoughts on this?.
i find this alarming because jones was very outspoken and had great guests on discussing topics most other media outlets wouldn't go near.. the fact that many have restricted him access to their medium what does this say on our freedoms of speech?.
@atomant: Actually... yes. That seems accurate.
what are you thoughts on this?.
i find this alarming because jones was very outspoken and had great guests on discussing topics most other media outlets wouldn't go near.. the fact that many have restricted him access to their medium what does this say on our freedoms of speech?.
Wikipedia describes her as “alt-right”. How much you want to bet if I look into it, she’s not really alt-right and stands for classic liberal values?
Edit: ohhh that’s where I know that name. She was the girl who crashed the Julius Caesar play... the one where Caesar is dressed like Trump. She objected to a mock Trump assassination fantasy ... yeah, that will get you the alt-right label.
Meanwhile, Richard Spencer is up and running..
what are you thoughts on this?.
i find this alarming because jones was very outspoken and had great guests on discussing topics most other media outlets wouldn't go near.. the fact that many have restricted him access to their medium what does this say on our freedoms of speech?.
He was banned for discussing his other bans?
i think this type of lawsuit might win against the watchtower corporation because it is such a inhuman act against a loyal long time full time service member.. portugal might have a serious case against the corporation for not taking care of it's elderly full time service members reguardless of any absolution of responsibility by forced signing of a vow of poverty..
What law is this? Linkity please?
