@Kayrxn_ Yo sigo lanzando a mano esferas azules como primer intento independientemente del porcentaje y a veces funciona. El Scatter Launcher lo hace más rápido, pero usar únicamente esferas azules es perfectamente viable.
@MobageSalt@GiveMeBanHammer I did, you just ignored it. In my first response to you I told you the supreme court considers baking the wedding cake as an act of protected speech. Look it up yourself and read it.
You decided to ignore it because you just can't understand that speech is more than words.
@MobageSalt@GiveMeBanHammer You either don't understand what an argument is or you just don't want to because you don't like it.
The cake was a wedding cake, with icing for a wedding cake that celebrated a wedding. Speech.
You even admit the decoration, the icing, is speech. What are you even arguing?
@MobageSalt@GiveMeBanHammer That's where the compelled speech comes from. If the artistic creation is speech and it's used for a cause the artist rejects (like calling wedding a same-sex marriage), that's compelled speech.
And political ideology is not a protected class, religion is.
@MobageSalt@GiveMeBanHammer The supreme court stated in their ruling on the cake case that the creation of the wedding cake is an exercise of protected speech. Meaning that an artistic creation (like the cake) is an act of speech, but also the use of that artistic creation is an act of speech itself.
@ObviousRises If the place is as illegal as you claim, and considering it has plenty of enemies, how come no one has managed to get the authorities to close it, huh?
@GiveMeBanHammer No, I would not consider a blanket rejection of business to be worse conduct than rejecting one order as long as what the business produces can be considered speech. Like a wedding cake or art used for someone else to speak.
To me, both cases are the same: compelled speech.
@TheFivePs5@MiiaTzu Religion is a belief, and not serving someone because of their religion is understood by most people as discrimination. Just saying.
@san_og75940@GiveMeBanHammer You can't force someone to express something they don't want to. Simple as. You can cry all you want about it, but that'e exactly what happened then and what's happening here, because we exist in a time that association means endorsement to a lot of people.
@san_og75940@GiveMeBanHammer That case was reviewed in the supreme court under 2 perspectives: Free Speech and, specifically, the Free Exercise Clause. They ruled using the clause, but they also hinted there were speech issues they weren't going to rule, and compelled speech was one of them