justin_o_guy2 wrote on 02/28/18 at 16:33:15:justin_o_guy2 wrote on 02/28/18 at 15:52:45:Rights are rights. That's not an exemption from a response.
The baker had rights.
The baker stood on his rights.
They weren't acknowledged.
That doesn't make them disappear,
But the baker suffered from a backlash
Because he did what he thought was right.
Just because you have a Right to do or say something, that doesn't insulate you from a backlash.
I"m going to just ignore the part about the baker, there is another thread about that.
so from this:
"Just because you have a Right to do or say something, that doesn't insulate you from a backlash. "
between individuals, private (non-government) corporations/companies sure
but this is the government, so, what's the point of the first amendment then?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ...."
isn't this the government prohibiting the exercise of free speech?
Edit:
or at least punishing free speech, which wouldn't that be abridging it?