I'm confused about the American Republican party

[Mavfin]

For some people it may be ideological, but not for everyone. I personally believe in both gay marriage rights and the right to bear arms. But our values also must be prioritized in some way. The question of course is how we do this, and in what way. I'm speaking in more generalized terms, such as freedom vs. equality, order vs justice, and such. But in the case of gay marriage and gun rights, I place a higher value on the former. The reason is because being against it would treat a group of people in our society as second class citizens, while the latter is more of a broad issue, and while I consider people rather than guns to be dangerous, nevertheless there can be potentially harmful consequences on regarding gun laws. There is absolutely no harm done to society by allowing gays to marry. The context of specific values and policy must be measured in some way, saying they both fall under personal freedoms is not enough because it oversimplifies things. Although the right to bear arms could very well end up being necessary to achieve things like marriage equality, ironically enough I will leave strict gun laws to the utopian Libs like Obama. Afterall, us revolutionaries need our guns too. I wouldn't be surprised in the least bit if conservatives changed their position on the right to bear arms if they knew people like me agreed with them, lol.

I wasn't assigning relative values to them, but Eppie obviously was.

Eppie will say gun control doesn't even belong on the same page with gay marriage, which IMO shows his political bias very clearly. He's entitled to have his views; I'm just pointing out that what he accused me of, he did in the act of accusing me of it. My own values did show when I picked these two pet issues of the two sides. To me, at the core, both issues come down to government poking its nose in where it's not needed. At that level, their relative value is the same. Personal freedom is being infringed, and if you don't stop it, they'll just take more of it.

And in case Eppie misunderstood me, I'm *not* against gay marriage. I don't care who's in whose bed, or how many of them there are or what gender they are, as long as all parties are old enough to consent to whatever they're doing. None of my business unless they're keeping me awake with their noise , and definitely not the government's business.

As far as second-class citizens, not letting gays marry definitely does that to them, but taking away people's 2nd amendment rights and only letting the government do it makes *everyone* a 2nd class citizen. So, relative values at that point become tied very much to your personal views. I submit that any party that opposes either one is wrong, and leave it at that. Eppie doesn't like it when I lump the Republicans and Democrats together and say that they're all bad, I guess. To his idea the Democrats are all good, I guess, and I see them as just as freedom-restricting as the religious right in their own way.

[LavCat]

...
I don't care who's in whose bed, or how many of them there are or what gender they are, as long as all parties are old enough to consent to whatever they're doing. None of my business unless they're keeping me awake with their noise :D , and definitely not the government's business.

It's said that John Wesley Hardin shot a man for snoring.

[Mavfin]

...
I don't care who's in whose bed, or how many of them there are or what gender they are, as long as all parties are old enough to consent to whatever they're doing. None of my business unless they're keeping me awake with their noise , and definitely not the government's business.

It's said that John Wesley Hardin shot a man for snoring.

LOL. The worst I'm likely to do is yell out the window "Finish her!" (or him, whichever is appropriate, I guess.)

[DeeBye]

but taking away people's 2nd amendment rights

Just to point something out here which might not be blatantly obvious to the American Lurkers - the 2nd amendment is solely a US thing. It's really hard for me as a non-American to put something like gun ownership on the exact same level as freedom of religion or freedom of the press. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying it's hard to wrap my non-American brain around it. It's like saying "Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the ownership of a lawn mower".

Then you get people arguing about owning lawn mowers. Are we allowed to own multiple gas-powered mowers? No! Too much power! You may only have a single push mower, and push it gently while apologizing to the grass as you go. Gas-powered mowers for all, we need to protect out lawns from the invasive blades of grass! No one needs that much lawn mowing ability!

Granted, a gun is a tool designed to kill and a lawn mower is only designed to maim multiple blades of grass in the most gruesome and efficient way possible - but they are just tools and objects.

[Mavfin]

Granted, a gun is a tool designed to kill and a lawn mower is only designed to maim multiple blades of grass in the most gruesome and efficient way possible - but they are just tools and objects.

Call it a cultural difference if you want. Both sides would like to infringe our 1st Amendment rights, too. Would that make more sense to you?

The Rebublicans want free speech for everyone (unless you're gay or an atheist, of course), and the Democrats want free speech for everyone (as long as it's approved politically correct speech, and you're not particularly religious.)

I'm neither gay nor particularly religious, so neither is particularly trying to curb *my* speech, but I still don't like that they're doing it, and I'm definitely not going to curl up next to either one.

Is that more clear to you? They're still both wrong, and still poking their noses in where it's not needed.

That's the simplest version I can make. Think of the guns and gays in the previous examples as symbols, and it may make more sense.

[FireIceTalon]

While I am generally in favor of free speech (especially against government and political institutions or corporations), certain types of hate speech, in particular those of a racist, sexist, religious, or discriminatory nature toward gays/lesbians or disabled individuals should NOT be protected under any circumstances. I mean, I guess no one can stop someone from making racist or related hate remarks, but if they get your ass whooped for it, that person brought it on themselves I say, and I have no pity for them. Well I do a little bit, cause most people who make such comments lack grey matter upstairs, but thats a different matter. Nor should the person who did the ass whooping be held accountable. In fact, if it were up to me, they'd be rewarded for it

[kandrathe]

Just to point something out here which might not be blatantly obvious to the American Lurkers - the 2nd amendment is solely a US thing. It's really hard for me as a non-American to put something like gun ownership on the exact same level as freedom of religion or freedom of the press. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying it's hard to wrap my non-American brain around it. It's like saying "Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the ownership of a lawn mower".

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The origin of this is rooted in the US having been a British colony and having been oppressed for a hundred years by a professional standing army. "Militia" had a key meaning in those times, being a rally of armed citizens who would be mustered as needed. It is still understood that a well armed populace cannot be as easily dominated by a tyrant. If it comes down to it, the organized citizens will be able to vote with force of arms, when all other forms of democracy fail.

While "militia" is a bit of an anachronism, the basic principle of the freedom to defend yourself is not. The gun is still a tool for use in defending your family and property, but no longer from marauding foreign armies. The 2nd amendment is rooted deeply within republican ideas and principles back to the times of Machiavelli.

The ideological origins of the 2nd Amendment.

It was Joel Barlow, however, who most eloquently articulated the vital role of arms in American republican thought. Barlow firmly believed that one of America's greatest strengths rested in "making every citizen a soldier, and every soldier a citizen; not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm." Whereas in Europe this "would have gained little credit; or at least it would have been regarded as a mark of an uncivilized people, extremely dangerous to a well ordered society," Barlow insisted that in America "it is because the people are civilized, that they are with safety armed." He exulted that it was because of "their conscious dignity, as citizens enjoying equal rights, that they wish not to invade the rights of others. The danger [where there is any] from armed citizens, is only to the government, not to the society; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage."

It was never the intention of the republican minded framers of the constitution for the US to maintain the largest more powerful army in the world. Ironically, now we do elsewhere what the British did to us.

[Pantalaimon]

It was Joel Barlow, however, who most eloquently articulated the vital role of arms in American republican thought. Barlow firmly believed that one of America's greatest strengths rested in "making every citizen a soldier, and every soldier a citizen; not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm." Whereas in Europe this "would have gained little credit; or at least it would have been regarded as a mark of an uncivilized people, extremely dangerous to a well ordered society,"

Amusingly enough, aren't the Swiss rather well known for a similar philosophy of militia and general culture of order?

More to the point, given the state of military technology, I fail to see how the right to own small arms is at all relevant to keeping the government in check. If a hypothetical US government wished to oppress its people, it couldn't possibly do a worse job of it than what we're already seeing in places such as Syria. You would see the might of a modern military: armour, machine guns, indirect fire. All of which are specifically designed to nullify the threat of small arms combatants.

Taking the original argument for gun ownership to its logical conclusion: if the 2nd Amendment is truly about a check on the government, Americans should thus be able to purchase and own the sorts of weaponry that IS tightly regulated, such as claymores, anti-tank armaments, fully automated assault rifles, grenades and the like. Yet, other than some extremists, I don't think we see any debate on control of those weapons. But heaven forbid someone takes our handguns away!

I can't see how gun ownership today has any deterrent effect on a government wishing to opress its own people. Full stop. The deterrent comes with having a military that is sworn to uphold certain rights and freedoms, and would refuse to execute unlawful orders from said oppressive government.

---

I mean, I guess no one can stop someone from making racist or related hate remarks

Only if they're on a social network, in which case Britain can, upon pain of incarceration.

[Tal]

While I am generally in favor of free speech (especially against government and political institutions or corporations), certain types of hate speech, in particular those of a racist, sexist, religious, or discriminatory nature toward gays/lesbians or disabled individuals should NOT be protected under any circumstances.

What a slippery slope. Who gets to determine exactly what is hate speech in that context?

[eppie]

... try looking at what you wrote from a neutral persons perspective.

How does one do that, exactly? We have values, and our interpretation is coloured by them. If we had no values at all, none of this would make sense to us - the questions would be meaningless.

-Jester

Thanks, Jester, you beat me to it.

To me, those are both personal freedom issues, so that's why I compared them, not putting relative values on them. Both are limiting others' freedom for ideological reasons, and I don't agree with either one.

Ok after this clarification I don't think anymore that this has to do with you political opinion but something far worse.

Maybe if you had written 'the right for gays to get married being approved' instead of 'gay people being approved' it would at least make sense.

If however you really mean what you wrote, do you also think the same about 'black people being approved'?

..., you are comparing a thing a person is born with to an object you buy.

In europe a man who says he is opposed to the right to bear arms and a man who says he is in favour of this can become president or prime minister anywhere. Someone that says he doesn't approve of gays will probably be only able to become president in Poland or so. Even in Italy or Ireland they wouldn't allow someone like that in office.

Not approving of gays is not an opinion, it is a useless statement. Like not approving of gravity or green grass. Being for or against guns is a political statement.

---

I wasn't assigning relative values to them, but Eppie obviously was.

Eppie will say gun control doesn't even belong on the same page with gay marriage, which IMO shows his political bias very clearly.

Ok, after reading this I see that you had just written down a different thing than you wanted to say. You talked about approval of being gay and never mentioned gay marriage, and neither did I.

Your last sentence quoted by me is thus incorrect.
Gay marriage and gun control could in principle be compared. But still that is something that I would never dare to do.

[kandrathe]

Amusingly enough, aren't the Swiss rather well known for a similar philosophy of militia and general culture of order?

Yes. I'm not sure about the history of how they got to that philosophy. I'll research it more. They are similar to the US in their attitudes towards an armed citizenry.

Here is what I found; "Paul Vital Ignaz Troxler, a liberal physician from Beromünster (Lucerne) proposed a new federal state after the model of the United States of America in 1833. Interestingly enough, this idea originated in central Switzerland, but it became a reality only after a short civil war with central Switzerland opposed to it (see below)! The "Tagsatzung" [federal conference of cantonal representatives] prepared a moderately liberal Federal Constitution. A federal parliament with 44 members, a federal government with 5 members and a federal court of justice were planned. The powers of the federal authorities would have been substantially smaller than they are now according to the constitution of 1848. In particular there would have been no house of representatives elected in proportion to the number of inhabitans. This would have given more influence to the small, rather conservative cantons of central Switzerland than they have today. Lucerne as the biggest city in central Switzerland was foreseen as federal capital - nevertheless central Switzerland missed it's chance and wanted to stay with the old system. The draft was criticized by the conservative as being to progressive, and by the liberals as beeing to conservative. At that time, four out of ten consenting cantons were catholic, whereas several large reformed cantons opposed it. This shows that the dividing line between conservatives and liberals was not a confessional one at the beginning of the dispute."

More to the point, given the state of military technology, I fail to see how the right to own small arms is at all relevant to keeping the government in check. If a hypothetical US government wished to oppress its people, it couldn't possibly do a worse job of it than what we're already seeing in places such as Syria. You would see the might of a modern military: armour, machine guns, indirect fire. All of which are specifically designed to nullify the threat of small arms combatants.

I'm not sure I grasp the argument you are making. So, if insect repellent is not very effective in preventing mosquito bites I should go without it? In your post apocalyptic scenario, if the choice is to face down the tank naked, or with a pistol and a Molotov, I'd choose the later. I'd most likely die either way. At least until the tanks get to my house I can repel the looters.

But, what you are hinting at is exactly why according to our founding principles we'd want to trim back our standing military. Then it will not be a threat to us, or anyone else.

[eppie]

but taking away people's 2nd amendment rights

Just to point something out here which might not be blatantly obvious to the American Lurkers - the 2nd amendment is solely a US thing. It's really hard for me as a non-American to put something like gun ownership on the exact same level as freedom of religion or freedom of the press. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying it's hard to wrap my non-American brain around it. It's like saying "Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the ownership of a lawn mower".

Then you get people arguing about owning lawn mowers. Are we allowed to own multiple gas-powered mowers? No! Too much power! You may only have a single push mower, and push it gently while apologizing to the grass as you go. Gas-powered mowers for all, we need to protect out lawns from the invasive blades of grass! No one needs that much lawn mowing ability!

Granted, a gun is a tool designed to kill and a lawn mower is only designed to maim multiple blades of grass in the most gruesome and efficient way possible - but they are just tools and objects.

Good point. And also it might be added that (and correct me if I am wrong) the american constitution is a very old document and hasn't been really revised in a major way.
Even though I have changed my opinion on gun ownership a bit (I am not 100% against it anymore...I just don't think it is wise....it give you a good feeling because you can defend yourself but the overall chance of getting killed by someone else with a gun is much higher) i still see this 2nd amendment as something ancient. Of course you were supposed to have a gun 100 years ago where there was an incredible amount of lawlessnes (normal for such a huge and 'new' country).
Now you have police, and judges etc.....that are there to protect the people. (directly and indirectly).

---

While I am generally in favor of free speech (especially against government and political institutions or corporations), certain types of hate speech, in particular those of a racist, sexist, religious, or discriminatory nature toward gays/lesbians or disabled individuals should NOT be protected under any circumstances.

What a slippery slope. Who gets to determine exactly what is hate speech in that context?

Well it isn't really. If a constitution says all people are equal independent of their skin colour, sexual preference or religion it is not a stretch to not allow people to make hateful remarks about this.

---

I'm not sure I grasp the argument you are making.

I think the argument is about fall arguments.

The argument about being able to protect yourself form your government sounds very noble and is something many people would support.....me too.

But I guess this being able to protect yourself from your government isn't really an issue for 95 % of americans (both republican and democrats). I mean most pro gun people have not problems with a large army and police force.

Probably most people would like to have a gun now to be able to protect them from violent robbers that break and enter your house and threaten your family. Which of course also is a good reason, but not in line with what the people that wrote the constitution meant.

[Tal]

---

While I am generally in favor of free speech (especially against government and political institutions or corporations), certain types of hate speech, in particular those of a racist, sexist, religious, or discriminatory nature toward gays/lesbians or disabled individuals should NOT be protected under any circumstances.

What a slippery slope. Who gets to determine exactly what is hate speech in that context?

Well it isn't really. If a constitution says all people are equal independent of their skin colour, sexual preference or religion it is not a stretch to not allow people to make hateful remarks about this.

So if I say "I don't like Catholics" - is that hate speech? Or a comedian makes the tired joke about Catholic Priests and little boys that upsets someone - should the comedian be beaten as AngryCommie contends?

You can't take the Potter Stewart Rule of Pornography (I know it when I see it) and use it for outlawing hate speech. It goes against the intentions of the First Amendment.

[kandrathe]

But I guess this being able to protect yourself from your government isn't really an issue for 95 % of Americans (both republican and democrats). I mean most pro gun people have not problems with a large army and police force.

Did we get to our state of peaceful union because those founding principles were correct? I think many Americans, Republicans and Democrats, have issues with increasing governments power, including the legal reach of the law and fire power of the police used to enforce those laws.

Probably most people would like to have a gun now to be able to protect them from violent robbers that break and enter your house and threaten your family. Which of course also is a good reason, but not in line with what the people that wrote the constitution meant.

At the time of the writing of the Constitution it was normal for everyone to use guns frequently for gathering food. But, that is irrelevant. The principle that is embodied by "citizen militia" is more what they were envisioning. Where each person would not only be allowed to own a gun, but every citizen should be encouraged to have a gun and know how to use it to defend themselves. They saw everyone being equal in both rights, and the ability to defend those rights.

If it ever got to that point, I feel the 2nd amendment would cover anti-tank RPG's and shoulder launched SAM's too.

[Pantalaimon]

Here is what I found;

Thanks for the link. I didn't know that the Swiss model is based on the US one. They also appear to have recently rejected by referendum a repealment of some of their gun rights.

According to wiki, they also require a permit to carry firearms other than their government-issued military rifle. I think there's room for compromise between the 2nd amendment and gun control arguments.

I'm not sure I grasp the argument you are making. So, if insect repellent is not very effective in preventing mosquito bites I should go without it? In your post apocalyptic scenario, if the choice is to face down the tank naked, or with a pistol and a Molotov, I'd choose the later. I'd most likely die either way. At least until the tanks get to my house I can repel the looters.

Eppie's essentially correct in his summary of my logic. Small arms ownership no longer exercises any significant deterrent effect on the government, as the Constitution envisions. Therefore, it shouldn't remain a sacred cow on that basis alone.

The argument can be made that increased control of gun ownership is an unacceptable loss of freedom - in fact, that's how the subject got brought up in this thread. However, I don't believe argumentation purely based on the 2nd amendment can be made in good faith, considering (relatively) bipartisan support for the restriction of RPGs and other weapons that COULD exercise a "citizen militia" effect. We've already breached the original intent of the founders with such controls.

Actually, the article you cited sums up my views quite well at its conclusion.

Whether the armed citizen is relevant to late-twentieth-century American life is something that only the American people--through the Supreme Court, their state legislatures, and Congress--can decide. Those who advocate some measure of gun control are not without powerful arguments to advance on behalf of their position. The appalling and unforeseen destructive capability of modern weapons, the dissolving of the connection between an armed citizenry and the agrarian setting that figured so importantly in the thought of the revolutionary generation, the distinction between the right to keep arms and such measures as "registration," the general recognition of the responsibility of succeeding generations to modify the constitutional inheritance to meet new conditions--all will be serviceable in the ongoing debate.

[FireIceTalon]

---

While I am generally in favor of free speech (especially against government and political institutions or corporations), certain types of hate speech, in particular those of a racist, sexist, religious, or discriminatory nature toward gays/lesbians or disabled individuals should NOT be protected under any circumstances.

What a slippery slope. Who gets to determine exactly what is hate speech in that context?

Well it isn't really. If a constitution says all people are equal independent of their skin colour, sexual preference or religion it is not a stretch to not allow people to make hateful remarks about this.

So if I say "I don't like Catholics" - is that hate speech? Or a comedian makes the tired joke about Catholic Priests and little boys that upsets someone - should the comedian be beaten as AngryCommie contends?

You can't take the Potter Stewart Rule of Pornography (I know it when I see it) and use it for outlawing hate speech. It goes against the intentions of the First Amendment.

Your comedian example may or may not be hate speech depending on the joke's context, because it may very well be possible it attacks the ETHICS of Catholic Priests, and not necessarily Catholic Priests themselves. Saying "I dont like Catholics" would indeed constitute as hate speech. Now, you can say "I hate the Catholic religion", and that would NOT be hate speech, because you are attacking the religion, and not the necessarily the people who practice it.

I hate Christianity, but I dont necessarily hate all Christians. I have a couple friends who are Christian and others who practice some other religion...context plays a very fine line between hate and non-hate speech.

Religion may be a bit of a slippery slope, but ethnic, gender, and sexual orientation are quite straight forward. Things such as Nazi/KKK rallies and the like are to NOT be protected under the 1st Amendment.

[Mavfin]

I wasn't assigning relative values to them, but Eppie obviously was.

Eppie will say gun control doesn't even belong on the same page with gay marriage, which IMO shows his political bias very clearly.

Ok, after reading this I see that you had just written down a different thing than you wanted to say. You talked about approval of being gay and never mentioned gay marriage, and neither did I.

Your last sentence quoted by me is thus incorrect.
Gay marriage and gun control could in principle be compared. But still that is something that I would never dare to do.

I'm going to say that yes, the difference between the two passages was not intentional, that I meant to say 'gay marriage' rather than 'gays' when I was writing it. In a way, though, it was sort of a Freudian slip.

Your comparison to race issues is actually not as far off as you think. The people against gay marriage are in many cases the same people who DO basically 'disapprove of gays'. The really ugly examples of this are the 'Pray Away the Gay' camps/centers run along the lines of a rehab center, run by the religious right, of course.

It is the same old hate that many years ago went toward black marrying white, or other interracial combinations. In the world of today, voicing that racial opinion is complete political suicide, and rightly so, but, for some reason, people can't get their heads around it that the gay marriage hate is the same issue, really. Does anyone remember that some of the loudest opposition to interracial marriages was, as it is now with gays and gay marriage, from some of the churches?

We're really dealing with the same kind of hate repackaged; "they're different from us!"

Pretty damned stupid, if you ask me.

What it really comes down to is that the people who are against gay marriage and the people who want gun control, in their own ways, just want control. They want to reduce the freedom of the individual for their own (imo) selfish reasons that I disagree with in both cases. Of course the importance of said personal freedom is viewed differently by some in other countries, and may not always make sense to them. (Of course, we do some other really stupid stuff here that doesn't make sense to ME, I'll be the first to say.)

My comment on the gun control issue is that if it's truly as important and popular with the general public as some insist, then they should get the votes together to repeal the 2nd Amendment. After that they're free to make whatever laws they want to take away all the guns, UK-style. Until then, they're going against the Constitution the country was built on. You can also argue that the reasons for the 2nd Amendment no longer exist. Fine, there's a mechanism to make it go away. Use it. But making laws that ignore it would (to me) be the same as making laws that ignore the 14th amendment; i.e. wrong.

[Tal]

Your comedian example may or may not be hate speech depending on the joke's context, because it may very well be possible it attacks the ETHICS of Catholic Priests, and not necessarily Catholic Priests themselves. Saying "I dont like Catholics" would indeed constitute as hate speech. Now, you can say "I hate the Catholic religion", and that would NOT be hate speech, because you are attacking the religion, and not the necessarily the people who practice it.

I hate Christianity, but I dont necessarily hate all Christians. I have a couple friends who are Christian and others who practice some other religion...context plays a very fine line between hate and non-hate speech.

Religion may be a bit of a slippery slope, but ethnic, gender, and sexual orientation are quite straight forward. Things such as Nazi/KKK rallies and the like are to NOT be protected under the 1st Amendment.

You do realize that you're putting in the Government's hands the right to decide what is hate speech and what isn't right? Because GOOD LUCK getting a majority of American's to agree on what constitutes hate speech. Personally I don't agree with a lot of what you post and could probably come up with compelling reasons to make it hate speech.

Trust me - you don't want to infringe the right to free speech - even if you don't agree with what the other side is saying. It's too easy to make those words and sentiments illegal and take away that right.

[FireIceTalon]

Basically, ANY speech that discriminates or otherwise views another person as inferior based on that persons phenotype, is almost certainly hate speech. Do you really think this should be protected in a rule of law system?? Such speech is part of the foundation why social stereotypes and racism persist. I don't know. But it seems like to me, this just sounds like an coverup to justify the status quo and put freedom above equality, as the right so often loves to do. The right loves to talk about freedom, but it only applies to the people they view as 'acceptable' in society.

And regarding what I post, if by hate you mean that I hate Capitalism and other class antagonist systems that allow unjust inequalities and countless social problems to manifest themselves, then yes, by all means I am a hater. And I make no apologies about it. There is an extremely fundamental difference between hating a certain group of persons based on something like skin color and hating a oppressive class based system that is harmful to the overwhelming majority of society, except those who rule it. No comparison.

As far as governments power, well, you know how I feel about this issue already.

[Mavfin]

The US only appears like a 2-party system because of the voting system. If you didn't have First Past the Post, and probably an elected presidency as well, you'd have multiple viable parties. As it stands, two is the equilibrium number. Even if an incumbent is "killed" by a challenger party, the 2-party structure will remain.

-Jester

Yeah, I'd love something other than 'Winner take all'. Maybe do Senate seats on the present model (only 2 per state anyway) and the House on a proportional model, on a per state basis. That would make the 'other' parties more than curiousities and spoilers.

---

So if I say "I don't like Catholics" - is that hate speech?

Oh hell no. Now, if I go start killing them, or discriminating in employment because they're Catholics, for two examples, that's a different matter entirely. (Not hate speech, but there are laws to cover it.)

I really don't like Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher, but, I'm not going to lead a charge to deprive them of their free speech rights. Being a buffoon is not a crime.