I'm sure glad I've got a bunch of folks like you sticking up for the First Amendment. I'm detecting an awful lot of projection here. Just because most of you, quite evidently, are incapable of separating the way you would treat someone from your opinion regarding whether they (in this case Dixon) are morally right or wrong in their personal philosophy, doesn't mean Dixon is (but we all know Christians are inherently evil and not to be trusted, yes?). Is there anything in her actual 25 year record of *performance* that justifies firing, or is it only her thought crime? You see someone who disagrees with your moral opinion and cheerlead when she is railroaded for it. You enthusiastically participate in the very thing you wrongly accuse her of.
In this case, the sole person who has been unfairly treated for holding a moral view at variance with others is Dixon herself. But being a Grand Inquisitor is pretty fun isn't it? Especially when you know *damned well* that you can most probably get away with it if the victim is a Christian. Is there anything braver than a bunch of Constitutional lawyers?
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Unclear On The Concept
Most of the commenters to the Volokh post I mentioned here simply do not really "get" the first amendment. I was finally led to comment:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"Is there anything braver than a bunch of Constitutional lawyers?"
Perhaps Marxist Lawyers hiding behind the Constitutional; rights are what whatever fits agenda man, even if it means making up words to fit whatever.
Post a Comment