Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 13, 2017, 05:16:53 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
106195 Posts in 2396 Topics by 1094 Members
Latest Member: Ice Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, & Assembly
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Print
Author Topic: The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, & Assembly  (Read 68729 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41774


« Reply #150 on: June 30, 2016, 12:10:05 AM »

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/06/29/obama-appointed-prosecutor-chills-free-speech-in-idaho-migrant-sex-assault/?singlepage=true

Watch what you say.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41774


« Reply #151 on: June 30, 2016, 09:51:26 PM »

Unfgbelievable!!!

FEC votes 3-3 to punish FOX for having undercard debate!
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7680


« Reply #152 on: August 15, 2016, 09:07:03 AM »

repost from constitutional issues thread
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/08/muslim-flight-attendant-controversy-reveals-the-lefts-ignorance-of-religious-liberty
« Last Edit: August 15, 2016, 11:14:03 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41774


« Reply #153 on: October 04, 2016, 08:54:15 AM »

There are no permanent victories in politics, but the U.S. Supreme Court came as close as we’ll get Monday by rejecting the request by Wisconsin prosecutors to resurrect their abusive, secret campaign against Governor Scott Walker’s political allies.

You may have thought this campaign against free speech had died in July 2015 when the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the probe was “unsupported in either reason or law” and later fired Special Prosecutor Francis Schmitz. But Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm couldn’t accept his humiliation, and he and his media allies ginned up a campaign to beseech the U.S. High Court to hear the case.

The effort included the not-so-coincidental recent leak of some 1,500 pages of documents to the Guardian purporting to show scandal when there was none. On cue, the cause was picked up by the herd of independent minds at the Brennan Center for Justice, the New Yorker and New York Times.

The appeal was a long shot because the case concerned a matter of Wisconsin law. But the relentless persistence of the left in trying to prosecute political speech shows what could happen if the U.S. Supreme Court gets a five-judge liberal majority. The progressive censors will gin up cases to overturn legal precedents like Citizens United and SpeechNow v. FEC that have made it harder for government to regulate who can join with allies to influence elections.

As for Mr. Chisholm’s Wisconsin targets, they can now stop paying defense lawyers. One of those targets, Wisconsin Club for Growth Director Eric O’Keefe, went on the record with us from our first editorial in November 2013 reporting on the dawn raids and intimidation tactics. He took a risk in doing so because state law then barred targets from even speaking about their predicament.

With the Wisconsin press in the pocket of prosecutors, we were happy to help Mr. O’Keefe and the other targets fight back. The resulting legal challenges shut the probe down, and the state legislature has since rewritten its John Doe law to make such abuses less likely. Sometimes the good guys still win.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7680


« Reply #154 on: October 12, 2016, 03:27:42 PM »


and anytime to say whatever you like.

"My right to free speech"

What Huh?

What has that got to do with singing the national anthem which is what you were hired to do?

No one has the right not to be fired from their job because in the middle of their job they get up and start grandstanding on company time their political views.

Add the NBA to the NFL to my no longer watch list:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/12/singer-takes-knee-performing-national-anthem-nba-game/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15386


« Reply #155 on: October 12, 2016, 10:08:01 PM »


and anytime to say whatever you like.

"My right to free speech"

What Huh?

What has that got to do with singing the national anthem which is what you were hired to do?

No one has the right not to be fired from their job because in the middle of their job they get up and start grandstanding on company time their political views.

Add the NBA to the NFL to my no longer watch list:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/12/singer-takes-knee-performing-national-anthem-nba-game/

I have taken a knee when it comes to the NFL. Never really watched the NBA anyway.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41774


« Reply #156 on: January 08, 2017, 05:50:42 PM »



https://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41774


« Reply #157 on: June 19, 2017, 10:47:32 AM »

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/us/politics/supreme-court-trademarks-redskins.html?emc=edit_na_20170619&nl=breaking-news&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9275


« Reply #158 on: September 14, 2017, 08:17:17 PM »

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41774


« Reply #159 on: October 05, 2017, 07:13:14 AM »

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/sen-feinstein-opposes-a-free-press/

I suppose the counter argument is that if there is a shield law, there must be a definition of whom it covers , ,  ,
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41774


« Reply #160 on: October 12, 2017, 08:45:36 AM »

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/355051-trump-news-network-licenses-must-be-challenged-and-if-appropriate?rnd=1507767656
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41774


« Reply #161 on: December 06, 2017, 10:41:26 AM »

In Wedding-Cake Case, Supreme Court Weighs Clash Between Gay Rights and Religious Views
Spotlight turns to Justice Anthony Kennedy as justices challenge both sides
Baker Jack Phillips working at Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., in this undated photo.
Baker Jack Phillips working at Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., in this undated photo. Photo: eric baradat/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
By Jess Bravin and
Brent Kendall
Updated Dec. 5, 2017 2:13 p.m. ET
812 COMMENTS

WASHINGTON—Supreme Court justices wrestled with competing visions of individual rights Tuesday, vigorously debating a legal collision between a baker whose Christian faith condemns same-sex marriage and a state law requiring him to sell wedding cakes without regard to sexual orientation.

The case was the first​ major dispute to reach the high court in the wake of its 2015 ruling extending same-sex marriage nationwide, forcing the justices to evaluate that decision’s impact on private parties who, typically for religious reasons, remain opposed to the practice. ​

While federal law doesn’t explicitly protect gay couples from discrimination, more than 20 states and hundreds of local jurisdictions outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, much as they forbid bias against customers for reasons of race, sex, religion, disability and other attributes.

Neither side’s attorneys yielded ground during the arguments, which left little clear other than the court’s recognition that both Jack Phillips, the Lakewood, Colo., baker, and the Denver couple he refused to serve, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, have significant rights at stake.

In a nod to the complexity of the case, several justices challenged lawyers representing the side they were expected to sympathize with.
Related

    Trump, Senate GOP Divided on Moore
    Rep. Conyers Resigns Amid Allegations
    After Taxes, Republicans Pivot to Welfare
    Californians Push to Keep Deduction

Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Donald Trump appointee championed by conservatives, suggested that the administration’s argument favoring Mr. Phillips could open the door to wider discrimination. And liberal Justice Stephen Breyer voiced concern that Colorado had been too cavalier in its treatment of the vendor’s religious views.

But empathy rarely is enough to move justices off their ideological ground, leaving the spotlight on Justice Anthony Kennedy, the maverick conservative who embodies the legal conflict within the case.

Over the past two decades, Justice Kennedy has joined, and led, the court’s liberal wing in expanding gay rights, culminating in a 2015 decision extending same-sex marriage nationwide. But Justice Kennedy also has joined fellow conservatives in easing the strict separation of church and state that had been charted by precedents dating from the 1960s.

On Tuesday, he pressed both sides toward the uncomfortable extremes their arguments could portend.

The Trump administration joined the case on the side of the baker, and the U.S. solicitor general argued on his behalf at the court Tuesday. That marked another occasion when the administration has sided with social conservatives on a high-profile issue reversing a position taken by the Obama White House.

U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, making his first argument as the Trump administration’s high-court advocate, suggested that regardless of antidiscrimination laws, the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee should allow businesses to reject any customer seeking their product or services for “an expressive event like a marriage celebration to which they’re deeply opposed.”

“If you prevail, could the baker put a sign in his window, ‘We Do Not Bake Cakes for Gay Weddings’?” Justice Kennedy asked. “And would you not think that an affront to the gay community?”

“I would not minimize the dignity interests to Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins one bit, but there are dignity interests on the other side here, too,” Mr. Francisco said.

When Frederick Yarger, the Colorado solicitor general, took the lectern, Justice Kennedy upbraided the state with equal force. “Counselor, tolerance is essential in a free society, and tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual,” he said. “It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’s religious beliefs.”

Where Justice Kennedy questioned Mr. Francisco over the possibility of a nationwide campaign pressuring bakers to refuse service to gay couples, he told Mr. Yarger that “accommodation is quite possible” because “other good bakery shops” presumably would welcome business from engaged couples of the same sex.

The dispute arose in 2012, when Messrs. Craig and Mullins came to Mr. Phillips’s Masterpiece Cakeshop, only to be turned away within moments of expressing their interest in a wedding cake. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, where an administrative law judge and then a seven-member commission found the bakery must offer wedding cakes to same-sex couples on the same terms as other customers.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!