Limited Freedoms of Speech

You may have noticed the Michigan Catholic farmer claiming his First Amendment rights have been infringed to speak his mind about the degenerative nature of same-sex marriage when the nearby East Lansing operated Farmer's Market determined his farming operation was not in compliance with a city ordinance not allowing discriminatory business practices. The East Lansing City Manager cited their city’s civil rights ordinance, including sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes in “all business practices.” Notice the cross talk about rights and freedoms and rights to freedom here. The farmer claims his right to speak his mind has been denied. Yet the Mayor says it is the City's right to not engage in commerce with those whose minds are not inclined to protect rights of free sexual orientation and gender identity. The farmer can believe any supremacist thing he chooses, and is equally free to speak aloud his mindlessness, but this gives him no right to demand access to that market he would prefer remain suppressed. There is all the difference between rights of free speech and rights of freedom from restricted actions. Saying you do not believe in equal civil rights for all God's multiculturing children is protected, to act in defiance of those protected civil rights is not protected. You are within your freedom protecting rights to believe some people would be better off dead, yet this is a right of free speech, not free implementation, not freedom of action, not freedom to deny another's freedom to live in some way that neither intends, or actually does, threaten your right to live and say whatever non-freedom impinging way you choose. We all have protected freedoms of thought and opinion and feeling and comment and verbal expression, but this does not extend to economic and political participation rights to deny others' freedoms of thought and opinion and feeling and democratic comment and verbal and nonverbal expression with no intent to economically victimize or politically marginalize, certainly not criminalize, you. And all of this perhaps rather misses a more fundamental point. In a multicultural, multigenerationally-intended, sustainable democratic climate and landscape, rights to defend protected freedoms of expression were originally intended, and are more healthily continuously extended, within a more positive context of protecting rights to speak of what brings you a sense of hope and promise, to speak of what you are for; and really not so much about what we are more monoculturally against, especially in some aristocratic-elitist-supremacist-royalist non-democratic divisive and competitive way that builds higher walls between Earth's MultiCulturing Tribes and Species all co-invested in more cooperative climates and landscapes and policy discussion frameworks and ecopolitics. The right to own property, including guns and your own speech, implies your neighbors' right to own property without threat of pollution from your property, including your violence and your uncivil speech.