Aww. I'm so sorry that my actual beliefs don't match up with the distorted version of them that you constructed.Darth Wong wrote:Ah yes, appealing to carefully written language in order to pretend you never meant anything of the sort. I see you are resorting to dishonest fucktard behaviour. What a shock for a right-wing idiot.
Of course he "had a problem" with gays, and I never claimed otherwise (another straw man). The distinction is that he didn't discriminate against gays, he discriminated against a political/social viewpoint.Oh yes, he has no problem with gays as long as they "know their place", right?Are you delibrately ignoring how he had previously given service to that "class of people" in the past, or has it been too long since you went off to see the wizard?
If someone did something like that to me, I would consider protesting outside their offices or organizing a boycott. I would not run to the government and have them force the business to conform to my will.Obviously, you've never had the experience of being discriminated against in any substantive way, ie- one that actually keeps you from being able to do something.
Brockie's printing business was in Toronto, which I kinda doubt has a shortage of willing printers...If the situation makes it extremely difficult for him to get his ad in print (for example, if all the newspapers in town are controlled by fundies), yes.- A fundamentalist magazine (or perhaps just a normal newspaper run by a fundamentalist) refuses to print an ad for a gay advocacy group. Should the government force him to run the ad?Again, if all of the newspapers in town are run by gays and this means the guy can't get his ad printed, then yes.- A gay advocacy magazine (or perhaps just a normal newspaper run by a gay advocate) refuses to print an ad for a fundamentalist group. Should the government force him to run the ad?
My understanding is that CBS wouldn't run the ad at all, and the fact that it was a Superbowl thing just made the incident more prominent.Not letting people have a particular placement is a different situation than refusing to run it altogether, dipshit.And just for fun, a real-life example: Should the FCC have forced CBS to run MoveOn.org's anti-Bush Superbowl ad?
That would be part of it. However, a less abstract reason is that forcing this kind of behaviour underground is ultimately self-defeating; it will fester and grow out of sight, and likely won't be noticed by the general public until it's already become a much larger problem than it otherwise would have been. As SecondStorm said, it's better to have them out in the open, where we call all point at them and laugh.Why is this a good thing? State your ethical reasoning (I presume you will resort to "absolute rights" talk).SecondStorm wrote:I guess you consider Denmark to be an "un-enlightened" nation then. Our freedom of speech is such that if you can print nazi propaganda as long as you dont incite to violence.
(I recall that Howard Stern does something like this, by inviting neo-Nazis on his show so he can make them look stupid.)