The COVID19 SCAMdemic... Economy So Strong That eBay Hard Up For Business

[KevinC]

 

[anotero]

Exactly, what was her name?

His name was Robert Pauls... her name was Ashli Babbitt.

 

[anotero]

"Scatter Brains" - Andrew Schulz

Facepalm.

 

[Unreal1]

Then yours is even more wrong based on natural observable reality, common sense and biology. Legalese is open to interpretation and will be washed away by the sands of time while the natural aspects of actual humanity won’t.

Semantics again. To put it in simpler terms for you, corporations are afforded the same first amendment rights as people. No one is arguing they're literal people, but they are afforded the same first amendment rights as people. Primarily because a corporation is nothing more than a collection of people. However, if Mickey Mouse starts drawing itself and talking politics, then you'll certainly have a valid point. Until then, you can disagree with the supreme court as much as you want, but the fact remains as of right now corporations do have first amendment rights. This fact should be acknowledged when discussing whether the government should punish a company for exercising that right.

To put another way that might be more acceptable for you are the baking companies vs gay couple cases. Those cases are difficult because, on one hand, the business has a first amendment right to freely exercise their religion. On the other hand, there are anti-discriminatory laws in place that protect gay people. Note though that these cases are business vs as opposed to an individual of the business vs, implying the business itself has a first amendment right. Let that sink in if you can.

 

[Pleatia]

Semantics again. To put it in simpler terms for you, corporations are afforded the same first amendment rights as people. No one is arguing they're literal people, but they are afforded the same first amendment rights as people. Primarily because a corporation is nothing more than a collection of people. However, if Mickey Mouse starts drawing itself and talking politics, then you'll certainly have a valid point. Until then, you can disagree with the supreme court as much as you want, but the fact remains as of right now corporations do have first amendment rights. This fact should be acknowledged when discussing whether the government should punish a company for exercising that right.

To put another way that might be more acceptable for you are the baking companies vs gay couple cases. Those cases are difficult because, on one hand, the business has a first amendment right to freely exercise their religion. On the other hand, there are anti-discriminatory laws in place that protect gay people. Note though that these cases are business vs as opposed to an individual of the business vs, implying the business itself has a first amendment right. Let that sink in if you can.

Except the “gay” couples are actually operatives sent to attack normal citizens that have rights as well.

 

[zrickety]

Get real. If you’re gonna pull a hail Romney and die on the “corporations have human rights and I’m gonna defend them” hill by all means that’s your prerogative albeit an incredibly out of touch semantic one. I’ll stand by my original assertion that corporations aren’t people. “Legal definition” be damned.

100%. Just because something is deemed 'legal' doesn't make it morally right.
The CEO of corporation is a person, his employees are people, but the corporation is NOT a person.
Just lobbyist shenanigans.

 

[zrickety]

Semantics again. To put it in simpler terms for you, corporations are afforded the same first amendment rights as people. No one is arguing they're literal people, but they are afforded the same first amendment rights as people. Primarily because a corporation is nothing more than a collection of people. However, if Mickey Mouse starts drawing itself and talking politics, then you'll certainly have a valid point. Until then, you can disagree with the supreme court as much as you want, but the fact remains as of right now corporations do have first amendment rights. This fact should be acknowledged when discussing whether the government should punish a company for exercising that right.

To put another way that might be more acceptable for you are the baking companies vs gay couple cases. Those cases are difficult because, on one hand, the business has a first amendment right to freely exercise their religion. On the other hand, there are anti-discriminatory laws in place that protect gay people. Note though that these cases are business vs as opposed to an individual of the business vs, implying the business itself has a first amendment right. Let that sink in if you can.

Nobody is stopping Disney from being 'woke.' In fact, their own internal chat system is full of employees speaking out against their pro-LGBT stance. The 'Don't Say Gay' bill is being misrepresented by Disney. It is not 'retaliation' by DeSantis, they have gamed the system too long and it's time for them to play on an even playing field. Let them put up a candidate for governor, see how that goes.
Newsflash- DeSantis is the most loved Governor in the nation right now.

 

[npace]

Punishing them for speaking out against a bill is absolutely censorship. Everything else you said just further proves my point. The culture war has become more important than upholding things like free speech.

Revoking a special privilege enumerated in the Constitution to state governments (and not corporations) is censorship? Please, sit down and color your place-mat. Grownups are talking.

 

[uberdot]

Semantics again. To put it in simpler terms for you, corporations are afforded the same first amendment rights as people. No one is arguing they're literal people, but they are afforded the same first amendment rights as people. Primarily because a corporation is nothing more than a collection of people. However, if Mickey Mouse starts drawing itself and talking politics, then you'll certainly have a valid point. Until then, you can disagree with the supreme court as much as you want, but the fact remains as of right now corporations do have first amendment rights. This fact should be acknowledged when discussing whether the government should punish a company for exercising that right.

To put another way that might be more acceptable for you are the baking companies vs gay couple cases. Those cases are difficult because, on one hand, the business has a first amendment right to freely exercise their religion. On the other hand, there are anti-discriminatory laws in place that protect gay people. Note though that these cases are business vs as opposed to an individual of the business vs, implying the business itself has a first amendment right. Let that sink in if you can.

I’m not arguing that companies don’t have the right as a whole to express themselves, I’m arguing that the government wasn’t censuring, or punishing Disney for utilizing their freedom of expression, but for trying to upend and influence state laws. Disney has the weight to throw around which can definitely turn us towards the side of the slippery slope of unelected corporate governance instead of democracy. And if it’s apparently so exhausting for you to continue this discussion and you if place such a low estimation on my ability to comprehend what I refuse to buy from you; why do you continue to try to sell it? Nobody here is getting cool points so I think we’re done here.

 

[npace]

Doesn't matter if they wanted 1,000 genders, free speech says they have the right to voice support for whatever they want.

Just because they're wrong doesn't mean they should be censored. That's not how things work in America.

They weren't censored. Nobody has stopped them from doing anything. There is no reason, whatsoever, that a corporation should be allowed to levy its own taxes while simultaneously not paying taxes to its government. As a more left-leaning person in this chat, I would expect you to be all for this, since now they have to pay their fair share.

Edit: I agree that the reasoning behind the move is stupid and past due. But it should have been done anyway.

 

[uberdot]

So about that rare hepatitis in children

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827822002343

 

[Unreal1]

I’m not arguing that companies don’t have the right as a whole to express themselves, I’m arguing that the government wasn’t censuring, or punishing Disney for utilizing their freedom of expression, but for trying to upend and influence state laws. Disney has the weight to throw around which can definitely turn us towards the side of the slippery slope of unelected corporate governance instead of democracy. And if it’s apparently so exhausting for you to continue this discussion and you if place such a low estimation on my ability to comprehend what I refuse to buy from you; why do you continue to try to sell it? Nobody here is getting cool points so I think we’re done here.

You mean lobbying? We're already there. Releasing a statement is pretty harmless when compared to the billions of dollars used to buy politicians. Should tech companies have been punished for speaking out against net neutrality legislation? Did that push us closer to corporate governance then?

 

[Unreal1]

Nobody is stopping Disney from being 'woke.' In fact, their own internal chat system is full of employees speaking out against their pro-LGBT stance. The 'Don't Say Gay' bill is being misrepresented by Disney. It is not 'retaliation' by DeSantis, they have gamed the system too long and it's time for them to play on an even playing field. Let them put up a candidate for governor, see how that goes.
Newsflash- DeSantis is the most loved Governor in the nation right now.

Yeah, it's just a coincidence it happened now.

 

[Unreal1]

They weren't censored. Nobody has stopped them from doing anything. There is no reason, whatsoever, that a corporation should be allowed to levy its own taxes while simultaneously not paying taxes to its government. As a more left-leaning person in this chat, I would expect you to be all for this, since now they have to pay their fair share.

Edit: I agree that the reasoning behind the move is stupid and past due. But it should have been done anyway.

By that logic, the people who have lost their jobs over cancel culture weren't censored either.

I'm not left-leaning and I don't disagree with you about their special privileges. If this had happened before they spoke out then I wouldn't have cared. We all know why it was revoked now and you guys have agreed numerous times the reasoning was wrong yet continue to argue against me.

 

[Unreal1]

Why do foreigners act as if they know more about America than Americans? If you guys put this much energy into your own country you wouldn't have to be worried about what we're doing and how that might impact you.