Message #1475

[clistensprechen]

with the exception of pornography shops which ARE covered by the First Amendment.

So, You're saying that if the President of a pornoshop said the same thing as the president of Chick-Fil-A said, then it would be a violation of the 1st amendment to deny his company a building permit. But every other business in the country does not have that protection.

You must have bent over backwards to put that much effort into not getting what I was saying about the First Amendment and the protected Press. For some odd reason, the First Amendment doesn't seem to apply to Press that involves child ****, which means that the First Amendment isn't always applicable in all cases, involving the Press.

Chick Fil A is not Press and can't claim any sort of First Amendment rights to operate as, say, a regular **** shop does. Your problem is that you and your fellow cons attempt to tie First Amendment protections of what the president says to the operation of the president's business, and in that you persist in your error. No restaurant operation is protected by any First Amendment--only what its president says is, silly. The president remains free to say whatever he wants, then, now, and in the future.  His business does NOT have any constitutional right to operate anywhere--it's by permission only, and community standards apply to the granting or withholding or revocation of that permit. It is true for **** shops, it's true of FCC regulated broadcasters, it's true across the board.  The FCC in particular is a stickler for upholding that legal concept known as "community standards".

..."with the exception of pornography shops" I never realized that the constitution laid out specific freedoms for pornography. Our founders were really thinking ahead, weren't they.

You need to read the part of the First Amendment where it grants freedom of the Press. Wear your glasses if necessary.