The Left is terrified of DeSantis and wants Trump for the nominee: Change my mind

Yes and yes.

 

No, it really doesn't. What speech is DeSantis compelling anyone to make?

 

This is correct. Where you go off the rails is in trying to call it "freedom." It's not freedom. It's very much the opposite. The government is restricting the freedom of private citizens. We often accept such restrictions in the anti-discrimination context because of the public good that arises from protecting certain classes of people.

Of course, when the government starts protecting the wrong classes of people, the citizenry have every right to call that out. For instance, I expect you wouldn't call it "freedom" if Crazy Blue State passed a law preventing private schools from discriminating against pedophiles when making employment decisions. I don't think anybody would see a societal good in the government essentially forcing private schools to hire pedophiles.

 

If you're punished for speaking in a manner he doesn't like, that's not freedom. It's a compulsion to do what you're told. No matter how much you dutifully recite your doublespeak, it can't change reality.

 

That's not what you said. You said the state was compelling a certain kind of speech, I'm still waiting to hear what speech the state was compelling.

 

Fair enough.

We'll call it government looking out for the rights of the unvaccinated.

 

Okay, call it that. People will correctly point out that protecting somebody from discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristic (such as race) is very different than protecting somebody from discrimination on the basis of a personal choice, a choice that risks harming others.

 

Are all protected classes based on immutable characteristics even under the Civil Rights Act?

 

????

Again, if you're punished by the government for saying the wrong thing, that forces you to say the "right" thing or suffer the consequences. It's baffling that you actually think that's freedom.

 

No, it doesn't. That is simply incorrect.

Poor exercise of logic there.

 

No, it could also compel them not to speak. Take that, lib.

 

Religion isn't. I'm not sure how this is relevant to whatever point you're trying to make.

 

I can see how you'd have trouble working it out, given your belief that freedom means doing what you're told.

Meanwhile, here in non-authoritarian America, it's not a close call. Hence, why Courts have recognized that government retaliation for wrongspeak is a first amendment violation for, I don't know, a few hundred years.

 

It means that a characteristic doesn't have to be immutable for it to correspond to a protected class, even under the Civil Rights Act.

 

You're arguing against your own straw man. Are you equating being Christian or Jewish to being an anti-vaxxer? If not, how does the CRA protecting religion support your argument that making anti-vaxxers a protected class promotes a public good?

 

Well clearly, if the public interest in protecting religious choice from commercial discrimination outweighs the burden it places on freedom, that means all choices should be protected. From being anti-vax, to pissing yourself while screaming Let's Go Brandon on the dining room floor.

Or something.

 

It supports a more inclusive environment on cruise lines in this case, it protects access to cruise lines for anti-vaxxers, and it shields anti-vaxxers from hateful discrimination.

 

So no, you can't offer a public good.

 

I just did. You just don't seem to like it.