What, specifically, is incorrect about my statements? So far your argument has consisted of a strawman and "no, you're wrong". Surely you can do better than this.
What's incorrect is you saying "When you open your private area to more and more people, then those people's rights quickly begin to supersede your own" as if that's some sort of established legal principle and not simply the Court explaining their thought process on a case seventy years ago that was specifically about company towns. The
Lloyd Corp. case clearly shows that it's not as open-and-shut as you're making it out to be. You're also wrong in claiming that "cases like that" are why businesses can't discriminate against minorities. Dave is talking a lot of nonsense in this thread, but he's at least right that anti-discrimination rules are the result of specific legislation that was passed addressing it, particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They didn't happen because of the
Marsh decision. It's like you think that case was the last word that anybody in the government had on the subject, and therefore that's what we should be consulting when settling the issue of whether or not social media websites are allowed to restrict speech.
I know this might be surprising to you, Saddam, but I'm not literally Donald Trump. It's not *my* administration.
Yes, it is. You are
literally Trump.
Additionally, what's wrong with defining gender more specifically under law? As far as I know, you can never literally become another biological sex, therefore "transgender" isn't something you can actually be. It doesn't really exist as anything other than a mental disorder.
That's not what it means to be transgender, and you know it. And regardless of whether you want to call it a disorder or a mental illness or whatever, as a medical phenomenon, it's a real thing. Millions of people don't turn their lives upside down and identify as another gender for the sake of a prank, a fad, or a demand for attention. There's no reason not to let them have appropriate federal recognition and protection under the law, just like there's no reason to bar them from the military. It's cruel and divisive, and because I know you'll start talking about feels and reals or whatever if I leave it at that, it's also utterly pointless in practical terms. There is no societal burden from the acknowledgement of trans people, nor would there be any real benefit to stripping them of their protections. This is being done to pander to bigots and to indulge Trump's trollish love of notoriety.
Hey guys. Its Its been a busy week so far and while I appreciate you trying to help by making my arguments for me, I would appreciate it if it wasn't wrong.
Wow. Well, I wouldn't normally put this so bluntly, but if that's the tone we're going to take, then here goes. I'm not trying to help you, and I'm certainly not making your arguments for you. If anything, I'm trying my best to keep my distance from you. I don't understand your logic half the time, most of what you're saying about free speech is alarmingly incorrect, and I feel a little embarrassed that people might read this thread and lump us together just because we're both liberals. Frankly, you're pretty much the liberal equivalent of Thork, and I find it fitting that the two of you have descended into a slap-fight about fucking pickles or some shit.