However I do quibble with saying the a liberal society wouldn't police the speech of it's members. Individuals following the same general beliefs and enforcing them, even on an individual basis without any government action, is still "society" policing itself.
View original post
View original postIt isn't supposed to do so in any way involving government action, true, but even the most liberal of societies police speech. Meaning, you can say whatever you like, but there are and should be societal consequences. Make racist anti-Jewish rants? I'm not going to invite you to my parties.
View original postAntisemitophobe! But, yeah, this is exactly how it goes and what is meant by freedom of association. Freedom of association is the only acceptable check on free speech. And it HAS to go both ways. Whether the freedom to disallow anti-semites OR Jews from your association. If you don't have to write "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" on a cake (and you shouldn't), you also don't have to put two groom or two bride figures on top of a wedding cake.
I am quite the notorious homosexual, but I definitely believe people should be allowed to not serve gays if they so choose. For whatever reason. Be it religious or just plain don't like for whatever reason. I think it should extend to all businesses for all reasons. However, given our society and how we must agree on a course of action in the law, I'd be willing to compromise and only allow current non-discrimination law to be applied to businesses that TRULY provide core basic services to people: restaurants, hotels, gas stations, etc. if they'll lay off everyone else. Unfortunately, I don't see even THAT compromise gaining much traction any time soon. Freedom of Association is pretty much dead. At least insofar as being evenly applied across our society.
View original post Nor will I patronize your business. As a potential employer, I might not hire you. To say that "freedom of speech" is somehow equal to "freedom from consequences for my speech" is ludicrous. A sufficiently liberal society would be reluctant to use such tools; confining it to only those who represent the most extreme and/or dangerous views. And shouldn't be used to silence those with "controversial" views, as you should have a right to "speak". But again, as with many things in life, you should have the freedom to do it, but are not free from the consequences.
View original postExactly. So long as the consequences are the result of individual choice, and not legislation or judicial action.
Holla atcha, girl.
*NM*