Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Wisconsin Virtue Signaling Bill

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wisconsin Virtue Signaling Bill

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/wisconsin...ts-events-bill

    A Wisconsin bill to require the national anthem to be played before all sporting events at fields and stadiums that received public funding passed in the state Assembly in a 74-22 vote Tuesday, with strong bipartisan support.

    Such sites include major, taxpayer-subsidized venues where the Packers, Bucks and Brewers play, as well as public schools and other facilities that were built or upgraded with taxpayer funds.


    This screams blatant unconstitutional compelling of speech. It doesn't matter if the venues were built/upgraded with taxpayer funds. You can't use that as an excuse to suddenly try and tie strings after the fact to the money.


  • #2
    Nobody should be compelled, but I suspect if they refuse they'll be stripped of some very questionable tax protections and the like, which I would not be opposed to.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      My stance on the national anthem/pledge is well covered on here so just suffice it to say I agree it's a terrible bill. Even that aside, it's kind of dumb if you think about it to arbitrarily demand the national anthem be played before a sports event. My office doesn't require us to stand for the anthem before we go in the morning. You don't have to stand for it when you go to the dentist. Why here?

      But as has been mentioned, public funding of stadiums is equally questionable.
      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Nobody should be compelled, but I suspect if they refuse they'll be stripped of some very questionable tax protections and the like, which I would not be opposed to.
        So long as nobody is dumb enough to actually tie the stripping of the protections to the refusal...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
          A Wisconsin bill to require the national anthem to be played before all sporting events at fields and stadiums that received public funding passed in the state Assembly in a 74-22 vote Tuesday, with strong bipartisan support.
          If religion or national identity does not bind a peoples what does?
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

            So long as nobody is dumb enough to actually tie the stripping of the protections to the refusal...
            That would be the only way such a law could possibly have "teeth."

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by seer View Post

              If religion or national identity does not bind a peoples what does?
              bacon.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                That would be the only way such a law could possibly have "teeth."
                As I said, it's (to me) an obvious unconstitutional law to compel speech. If someone refuses, stripping them of tax breaks because of it, would probably still end up breaking the 1st. Just because the government does not HAVE to let you have something (such as a tax break), it's still unconstitutional to strip that as a means of compelling speech.

                So, if someone wanted to do this, they'd essentially have to do it with a wink and a nudge over some other reason.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                  As I said, it's (to me) an obvious unconstitutional law to compel speech. If someone refuses, stripping them of tax breaks because of it, would probably still end up breaking the 1st. Just because the government does not HAVE to let you have something (such as a tax break), it's still unconstitutional to strip that as a means of compelling speech.

                  So, if someone wanted to do this, they'd essentially have to do it with a wink and a nudge over some other reason.
                  Again I agree that nobody should be compelled to play the anthem nor even be forced to stand for it, but as my father once told me after declaring he was going to fire someone that worked under him, and I pointed out that he didn't have any reason to fire him (aside for just not liking him for a stupid reason), "I can always find a reason to fire someone."

                  They can always find another reason to cut off the tax breaks and other favorable treatment they get even though everyone knows the real reason.

                  And here in Georgia, after Coke and Delta jumped on the fraudulent "Jim Crow 2.0" bandwagon after the state actually made it easier to vote (but harder to cheat), they were threatened with having their favorable treatment status stripped and it looks like the legislature will likely do so during the next session. Interestingly, none of those who voiced an objection have, AFICT, ever brought up free speech.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Again I agree that nobody should be compelled to play the anthem nor even be forced to stand for it, but as my father once told me after declaring he was going to fire someone that worked under him, and I pointed out that he didn't have any reason to fire him (aside for just not liking him for a stupid reason), "I can always find a reason to fire someone."

                    They can always find another reason to cut off the tax breaks and other favorable treatment they get even though everyone knows the real reason.

                    And here in Georgia, after Coke and Delta jumped on the fraudulent "Jim Crow 2.0" bandwagon after the state actually made it easier to vote (but harder to cheat), they were threatened with having their favorable treatment status stripped and it looks like the legislature will likely do so during the next session. Interestingly, none of those who voiced an objection have, AFICT, ever brought up free speech.
                    I think there's a case there if they decide to, but there's a big PR negative if they try.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                      I think there's a case there if they decide to, but there's a big PR negative if they try.
                      Wrt to Georgia, so many folks here are livid at them for being drawn so readily into the hoax that I'm not so sure about that.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It's completely constitutional. It's an incentive package and therefore has zero compulsion. And before you argue access this is the basis for virtually all grants and especially education programs. The Court does not consider it regulatory so as long as anyone can apply it meets the constitutional burden.

                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Quill Sword

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
                          This screams blatant unconstitutional compelling of speech. It doesn't matter if the venues were built/upgraded with taxpayer funds. You can't use that as an excuse to suddenly try and tie strings after the fact to the money.
                          Long before your arrival here, a notoriously meh rodent once advocated against using public funds to provide for the public welfare, because it eliminated the opportunity for Christians to fulfill their Christian duty of providing aid to the poor.

                          Mut. mut.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

                            Long before your arrival here, a notoriously meh rodent once advocated against using public funds to provide for the public welfare, because it eliminated the opportunity for Christians to fulfill their Christian duty of providing aid to the poor.

                            Mut. mut.
                            That rodent posted a lot of stuff in order to see what sort of reaction he'd get. More than once it was hard to tell just how serious he was, especially if there is any truth to the rumors that he did a stand-up comedy bit.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              That rodent posted a lot of stuff in order to see what sort of reaction he'd get. More than once it was hard to tell just how serious he was, especially if there is any truth to the rumors that he did a stand-up comedy bit.
                              His very public meltdowns lead me to suspect he more often used humor to mask posts that were otherwise indefensible.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by eider, Today, 01:15 AM
                              0 responses
                              14 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post eider
                              by eider
                               
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 12:18 PM
                              4 responses
                              42 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                              Started by oxmixmudd, Yesterday, 10:00 AM
                              14 responses
                              115 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Stoic
                              by Stoic
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 06-22-2021, 05:37 PM
                              10 responses
                              69 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, 06-22-2021, 04:25 PM
                              16 responses
                              85 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X