Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt
58,183
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − +
→top: HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://www.foxnews.com → https://www.foxnews.com
'''Viewpoint discrimination''' is discrimination against an individual or group solely on the basis of their expressed ideology or point-of-view. Viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional under the [[First Amendment]] when done by local, state, or federal governments in the [[United States]].
'''Viewpoint discrimination''' is discrimination against an individual or group solely on the basis of their expressed ideology or point-of-view. Viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional under the [[First Amendment]] when done by local, state, or federal governments in the [[United States]].
Viewpoint discrimination occurs when a government denies rights that would otherwise be granted based on ideology. As an example, when Boston, Chicago and other liberal cities<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444180004578016683484879960.html</ref> threatened to not issue business permits to the restaurant chain [[Chick-fil-A]] due to CEO Dan Cathy's principled support for traditional Biblical marriage. Since the proposed ban was not based on any actual ant-gay discrimination or criminal wrongdoing, it was considered a case of viewpoint discrimination.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26/politician-plan-to-block-chick-fil-is-unconstitutional-legal-experts-say/</ref>
Viewpoint discrimination occurs when a government denies rights that would otherwise be granted based on ideology. As an example, when Boston, Chicago and other liberal cities<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444180004578016683484879960.html</ref> threatened to not issue business permits to the restaurant chain [[Chick-fil-A]] due to CEO Dan Cathy's principled support for traditional Biblical marriage. Since the proposed ban was not based on any actual ant-gay discrimination or criminal wrongdoing, it was considered a case of viewpoint discrimination.<ref>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26/politician-plan-to-block-chick-fil-is-unconstitutional-legal-experts-say/</ref>
In ''Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.'', 131 S. Ct. 2653, 2672 (2011), a 6-3 [[United States Supreme Court]] invalidated a Vermont law by finding that it constituted unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination:
In ''Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.'', 131 S. Ct. 2653, 2672 (2011), a 6-3 [[United States Supreme Court]] invalidated a Vermont law by finding that it constituted unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination: