RE: Freedom of Speech
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
That cannot compare to one law, a law with a very limited, defined goal.
The goal was limited and defined, but not its consequences. Charlie even said that the goal was noble.
„In June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in three cases (Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which barred employers from discriminating on the basis of sex, precluded employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.“
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Charlie explicitely referred to those consequences.
To say that law was a mistake is to say that granting those specific protections (not all the acts and declarations that came afterwards) was wrong.
Again, that is objectively wrong. You can object to a law if it leads to bad consequences. This does not mean that you object to each single Part of that law. You may wish to have a more concise version of that law that has no or far fewer of those unintended consequences. I think many of the pro-voters of 1964 would be more than surprised to see how „their“ law has been abused.
Kind regards
zuerich
Dear @zuerich,
That is a very enlightening response. It gets to the heart of the disagreement congressional representative had with the Congressional Resolution. While you and Charlie Kirk may consider those SCOTUS decisions to be 'bad consequence', many would disagree with you.
It's been an interesting conversation. I had no insight into Turning Point or Charlie Kirk before I wrote this blog and before I had this discussion with you. Now I know and understand much more.
Thank you.
With regard and respect,
@agmoore
Dear @agmoore,
perhaps my latest post makes my position even clearer. I don't speak for CK, of course.
Thank you for our conversation.
Kind regards,
zuerich
I just read that post, with great interest. It does help to clarify not only your position, but the issue of equal rights. For whom, when, how...I will respond to that post at length a bit later.
Thanks for your honesty and willingness to address controversial issues in a civil manner.
Regards,
@agmoore