Avatar feed
Responses: 3
SrA John Monette
3
3
0
Yes it is. I want educators who support a student, no matter how they identify
(3)
Comment
(0)
PO1 H Gene Lawrence
PO1 H Gene Lawrence
3 mo
SrA John Monette read the article.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SrA John Monette
(1)
Reply
(0)
PO1 H Gene Lawrence
PO1 H Gene Lawrence
3 mo
SrA John Monette - apparently your reading comprehension skills need attention.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Maj John Bell
Maj John Bell
3 mo
SrA John Monette

The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is a clause within Article VI, Clause 3: "Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

I want to live in aa society where free speech includes freedom from compelled speech. A biological female or biological male that is under the gender dysphoria delusion that they are not so, has no right to compel me to play along with their gender dysphoria delusion.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MSG Stan Hutchison
2
2
0
Once again right-wing rags like The Federalist are showing their obsession with sex, attacking any system or organization that supports letting people love and live as they see fit.
(2)
Comment
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SFC Casey O'Mally
3 mo
MSG Stan Hutchison - Sure, they will be able to continue teaching - as long as they abandon their faith. Which is not really in compliance with the free exercise clause.

But then again, Walz is also on record saying that the first Amendment does not actually guarantee free speech, either. So it is not a surprise that he is willing to excise other parts of the 1st Amendment.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
MSG Stan Hutchison
3 mo
SFC Casey O'Mally - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

Does not guarantee free speech, just that Congress will make no law abridging free speech. Our courts have ruled there can be limits on speech, such as "no yelling fire in a crowded theater." That is why Rudy lost his case. That is why Trump has to pay out millions.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Maj John Bell
Maj John Bell
3 mo
MSG Stan Hutchison - There are two issues at play here as I see it.

1) The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is a clause within Article VI, Clause 3: "Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

2)Freedom from compelled speech. See article below,


https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/compelled-speech/#:~:text=The%20compelled%20speech%20doctrine%20sets%20out%20that%20the,refusing%20to%20articulate%20or%20adhere%20to%20its%20messages.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SFC Casey O'Mally
3 mo
MSG Stan Hutchison Right. Speech that intentionally and predictably harms others can be criminalized BASED ON THE HARM. You actually CAN yell fire in a crowded theater if no one stampedes. Or if the theater is actually on fire. It is not the SPEECH that is criminalized, it is the causing of harm.

That is not what Walz said, though. He said there is no guarantee to free speech as it pertains to misinformation. According to Walz, it is perfectly OK for the government to censor people with whom they disagree. And that DEFINITELY violates the first Amendment.

Also, so tired of the "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" trope being trotted out every single time people want to censor or criminalize speech. Because it is always presented without proper context and used to justify prohibitions on radically different speech. Like you just did here.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
LTC David Brown
2
2
0
I do believe religious discrimination is not allowed.. Walz is a nut case.
(2)
Comment
(0)
PO1 H Gene Lawrence
PO1 H Gene Lawrence
3 mo
I definitely agree.
(1)
Reply
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
MSG Stan Hutchison
3 mo
That is not what this is. This is simply job requirements.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close