notintheface0
Notintheface0
notintheface0

In this case, if a religious agency is against placement in a certain type of home and is not being publicly funded, how do we tell them they have to go against their religion and do this? The what I do in my own company and home is my own business mentality.

They CHOSE to close because they couldn’t discriminate.

Why? Because I don’t think people should waste their time having the same circular arguments over and over again with hateful extremists? To answer your question below, even though it wasn’t addressed to me, I’m not afraid of hearing anyone’s ideas. I’m not going to be convinced by their bullshit. But some people will

Go to bed? Someone’s projecting.

“The bill now heads to the desk of Republican Alabama Governor Gov. Kay Ivey. It is unclear whether Ivey plans to sign the bill into law.”

Is it, though? Is it unclear?

No really it’s not. The resting of power from the powerful via violent mobs is basically what the US was founded on.

This has been discussed to death and I am sick of disingenuous handwringing on behalf of people whose goal was never a free and open debate and who we legitimize unnecessarily by giving them a platform and pretending their bigotry is worthy of serious discussion. Where has that philosophy gotten us? A resurgence in

this is what we’ve been doing for the last 40 years and as a result, the right wing has complete control of almost every legislative body in the united states

It’s important to distinguish between “free speech” and “political speech”. The former is that general concept that anyone can say whatever they want (although it’s not clear whether this can actually be read as the right to make people listen to what you have to say), and the latter is what the 1st Amendment

“serve the needs of crime victims and their families who have been impacted by crimes committed by removable criminal aliens.”

They are casualties of crimes that should never have taken place

Some peoples’ ideas aren’t valid. Some people believe we should live in a society where the strong rule the weak and do what they want. Some people believe spousal rape is a fiction. There are endless examples of invalid ideas.

In the USA, speech is free. One can say what one wants to.

More bluntly: “Where you arrested? No? Then your free speech wasn’t violated.”

The alt right is effectively hacking democracy. Control the information the right set of voters receive and they’ll elect any piece of shit we put in front of them. Use “free speech” to get repugnant beliefs a place in the marketplace of ideas and claim that protesting those repugnant beliefs is undemocratic and

One more time, EVERYONE say it with me:

Or, alternately as the article explains, don’t feel giving space to the speech of people who have been proven empirically wrong has any value. Saying Murray is wrong is not meant in the ethical/moral sense (though he’s wrong there, too), it means he’s wrong in the empirical scientific sense (as in everything he

“Of course illegal aliens are dangerous, listen to these three anecdotes.”

I also enjoy the idea that one can “debate” with an Ann Coulter or a Richard Spencer.