Didn’t CU rule that spending money is free speech? So isn’t compelling the spending of money compelling speech? Sounds straight up unconstitutional.(as if that fucking matters these days)
My argument is that republicans are never consistent with their policies.
Spending isn’t free speech. The government cannot compell speech. This doesn’t not mean that the government can compell spending (I mean, it sorta can with taxes and fines, but it can’t compell spending to select businesses, markets or groups.)
Didn’t CU rule that spending money is free speech? So isn’t compelling the spending of money compelling speech? Sounds straight up unconstitutional.(as if that fucking matters these days)
Rich people spending money is free speech.
Anti-genocide activists not spending money is terrorism.
AKA the usual.
Wait, doesn’t your argument support their bill?
They’re agreeing with you; they are suggesting that convincing people of what to do with their money is infringing on their “speech.”
My argument is that republicans are never consistent with their policies.
Spending isn’t free speech. The government cannot compell speech. This doesn’t not mean that the government can compell spending (I mean, it sorta can with taxes and fines, but it can’t compell spending to select businesses, markets or groups.)
I agree with you but you’re operating outside of case law and the entire sentiment is moot when arguing this particular case.
Is it saying it’s illegal to “convince”(therefore not the consumer) or it’s illegal to “participate” (meaning the consumer)