Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Apples and oranges.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
I'm not sure what that means. If you're referring to the Westboro analogy, I'd argue that's it's apples and apples. The judge said that citizens are constutitionally protected against having their feelings hurt by a business. If that's true (and I'm pretty sure it's not true), why don't we have the same protections against having our feelings hurt by the Westboro kooks?
And how is this not a violation of the right to freedom of religion, which has consistently been interpreted as the right to practice your religion without the government telling you that your beliefs are wrong?
Interesting case...
Threaded Mode