It's the irrational people that hate people being free to act in their own best interests who are the problem.

I know, right? It'd be like if gay people couldn't eat at the same places we can.

---

I know, right? It'd be like if gay people couldn't eat at the same places we can.

 

If it's not your place it shouldn't be your say. The tyranny of the community, the next great civil rights battle.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The freedom to act politically in groups.

Ahhh, come on, you're better than that! :-)


That freedom has always been around. What you just wrote above was not the crux of the CU ruling...


Care to provide an actual result of the CU ruling that you find beneficial?

---

It's the irrational people that hate people being free to act in their own best interests who are the problem.

Corporation are not people in that sense. You know that but you also love your rhetoric. 

---

If it's not your place it shouldn't be your say. The tyranny of the community, the next great civil rights battle.

Every business relies on some level of public service. All public service is paid for with taxes. Taxpayers pay taxes. Some taxpayers are gay.


Is the math really that hard?

---

Every business relies on some level of public service. All public service is paid for with taxes. Taxpayers pay taxes. Some taxpayers are gay.


Is the math really that hard?

 

So the argument is dependence on public service requires equal access?

 

If that's the case we have no personal property rights at all, no one does, since everyone outside of the mountain man in Montana on some level is using public service. That's a pretty dangerous leap to make.

---

So the argument is dependence on public service requires equal access?

 

If that's the case we have no personal property rights at all, no one does, since everyone outside of the mountain man in Montana on some level is using public service. That's a pretty dangerous leap to make.

 

Businesses though are privately owned public space.  They're generally open to everyone.  Or at least assumed to be.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Businesses though are privately owned public space.  They're generally open to everyone.  Or at least assumed to be.

 

So the argument is dependence on public service requires equal access?

 

If that's the case we have no personal property rights at all, no one does, since everyone outside of the mountain man in Montana on some level is using public service. That's a pretty dangerous leap to make.

The answer above is the one that matters. Your home is not the same as your business. You can do anything you want in your home (for the most part) and no one will bat an eye. Operating a business is a different story. They are making money to some extent off of public services. It's a perfectly reasonable argument actually. 

 

I think trying to equate business and private homes is a poor analogy. There are very clear differences between the two both in form and function. 

---

The answer above is the one that matters. Your home is not the same as your business. You can do anything you want in your home (for the most part) and no one will bat an eye. Operating a business is a different story. They are making money to some extent off of public services. It's a perfectly reasonable argument actually. 

 

I think trying to equate business and private homes is a poor analogy. There are very clear differences between the two both in form and function. 

It's kind of funny that (and I'm not talking about anyone here for the record) many of the people who want people to stop controlling what people do in their business... are the same people who want to tell people what they can do in their own home.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

The answer above is the one that matters. Your home is not the same as your business. You can do anything you want in your home (for the most part) and no one will bat an eye. Operating a business is a different story. They are making money to some extent off of public services. It's a perfectly reasonable argument actually.


I think trying to equate business and private homes is a poor analogy. There are very clear differences between the two both in form and function.

What about the massive amount of people that work from home are they not blending the two?

---

Ahhh, come on, you're better than that! :-)


That freedom has always been around. What you just wrote above was not the crux of the CU ruling...


Care to provide an actual result of the CU ruling that you find beneficial?

 

Here's the holding from Wiki:

 

"A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed."

 

A group of people could not purchase air time within so many days of an election. You don't think those people have a right to say their piece? Of course you don't, why am I even asking? It's perfectly fine for the government to prevent those people from exercising their free speech rights because they are part of a group against which discrimination is fine. I just wonder what you'd think if they were a gay corporation?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Here's the holding from Wiki:

 

"A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed."

 

A group of people could not purchase air time within so many days of an election. You don't think those people have a right to say their piece? Of course you don't, why am I even asking? It's perfectly fine for the government to prevent those people from exercising their free speech rights because they are part of a group against which discrimination is fine. I just wonder what you'd think if they were a gay corporation?

It does not matter. No corporation should be able to poor near infinite amount of funds in elections. That is the argument people are making. 

---

What about the massive amount of people that work from home are they not blending the two?

It makes no difference to me. I am drawing the line at conducting business. If you conduct business with the general public than you ought not be allow to discriminate. I don't get the fervor with allowing discrimination and indeed, in some circles, praising it. 

---

It does not matter. No corporation should be able to poor near infinite amount of funds in elections. That is the argument people are making. 

 

Exactly.  I'm not sure how a corporation can be 'gay'.  I didn't even realize corporations can have gender.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Exactly.  I'm not sure how a corporation can be 'gay'.  I didn't even realize corporations can have gender.

It's a strawman. Nothing more. 

---

It does not matter. No corporation should be able to poor near infinite amount of funds in elections. That is the argument people are making. 

 

It violates the First Amendment, is it really that hard to understand?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It violates the First Amendment, is it really that hard to understand?

I seriously doubt corporate control of elections is what the writers of the first Amendment intended, as do a ton of other Americans seeing as in no where does it mention money, or campaign donations. The idea that money equals speech is no where in there.

 

Hence the drive for a campaign finance amendment. 

---

I seriously doubt corporate control of elections is what the writers of the first Amendment intended, as do a ton of other Americans seeing as in no where does it mention money, or campaign donations. The idea that money equals speech is no where in there.

 

Hence the drive for a campaign finance amendment. 

 

Fortunately the Supreme Court disagrees with you and enables us to retain our free speech rights.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Fortunately the Supreme Court disagrees with you and enables us to retain our free speech rights.

Fortunately plenty of people and states are pushing for an amendment to fix that silly problem. 

---

Fortunately plenty of people and states are pushing for an amendment to fix that silly problem. 

 

Good luck with that...

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato