| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
J
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:47 am Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to Sile |
 |
|
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/16029/CFI/family/index.htm#ref
Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to Silence People of
Faith 11/13/2008
By Shaun Waymire
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council stated: "In Canada, we respect
freedom of speech, but we don't worship it." That's Canadian lingo for
intolerance of pro-heterosexual programming on its airwaves. 1 Americans
beware, this growing animosity of religious viewpoints is spreading to the
United States. In fact, homosexual activists have made great progress in
pushing their agenda here at home and convincing the media and large numbers
of Americans that homosexuality is genetic. Moreover, the Democratic Party
eagerly pushes hate crimes and gender-orientation "discrimination"
legislation through local, state, and national legislatures that threatens
the First Amendment rights of pro-family individuals, businesses, and
tax-exempt organizations.
CLEVER MISREPRESENTATIONS
Homosexual activists convinced many Americans of a genetic link to
homosexuality by utilizing clever headlines and sound bites with no basis in
fact. 2 Jeffrey Satinover wrote in his book Same Sex Attraction: A Parents
Guide, "We have neither the time nor the ability to sort through the primary
information for ourselves in order to arrive at our own considered
conclusions. As a result, the deep complexity of the scientific research
into homosexuality is easy for people to misinterpret and easier still to
misuse." Such a reality allows gay activists to downplay the scientific
facts that threaten their agenda.
One of the most important studies refuting the notion of a gay gene involved
a group of identical twins. Identical twins possess the exact same genetic
makeup, meaning that if one was gay, the other must be also. However, the
study found that only 52 percent of the twins were both gay. 3 The same
researchers completed a similar follow-up study using a population derived
from the Australian Twin Registry, a non-biased sample, and found only 20
percent of the twins shared the same homosexual orientation. 4
These results solidify the conservative position that usurping religious
liberties over a non-genetic issue lacks common sense and good judgment.
They also reinforce the urgency of exposing the myths spread by homosexual
activists and their friends in the media who need Americans to accept their
lies to get anti-religious legislation enacted without a long and costly
fight.
Remember, a large bloc of the public believes homosexuality is genetic, but
science clearly shows otherwise. Conservatives must effectively publicize
this fact or risk an incremental loss of their First Amendment rights
through unconstitutional legislation.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ASPIRATIONS
The 110th Congress considered two very dangerous pieces of legislation: the
Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and the Local Law Enforcement Hate
Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (Matthew Shepard Act). ENDA would require
businesses and religious organizations to hire people who openly engage in
homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors, despite sincerely held religious
beliefs. 5 This means that a pro-family institution like Focus on the Family
may face a lawsuit for refusing to hire a homosexual, ending with a possible
loss of tax exempt status or worse. The same applies to religious schools,
religious non-profits, and even large Christian-based corporations such as
Family Christian Stores that seek to provide a Godly environment for their
customers.
The Matthew Shepard Act calls for6:
a.. Creating a federal hate crime defined as "bodily injury to any person
or.attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or
perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender
identity or disability of any person."
b.. Providing federal support to law enforcement agencies at the state,
local and tribal levels if requested.
c.. Allowing the federal government to prosecute hate crimes that states
refuse to prosecute.
By instituting national hate crimes legislation, our elected officials would
unconstitutionally elevate homosexuals, bisexuals, cross-dressers, and
transsexuals to a more protected legal status than everyone else in the
country. 7 Such legislation would lead to the infringement and repeal of
First Amendment rights.
ALARMING STORIES FROM ABROAD
Other Western countries with current hate crimes laws protecting sexual
orientation serve as great examples of where the United States might wander
should such legislation pass8:
a.. In Sweden, a pastor was arrested and sentenced to one month in prison
for preaching against homosexuality from the pulpit in his church. After two
arduous trials, Swedish authorities finally dropped the charges, but still
sent a clear and intimidating message to other religious Swedes.
b.. An Anglican bishop in England was investigated by police for saying
that homosexuals "could and should seek medical help to 'reorient'
themselves."
c.. Two films were banned in New Zealand for highlighting the link between
AIDS and homosexual behavior.
d.. A Canadian man was fined $5,000 for refusing to print business cards
for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives, even after citing his religious
beliefs.
e.. The radio shows of Focus on the Family and Dr. Jerry Falwell were
warned not to broadcast anything critical of homosexuality by the Canadian
Broadcasting Board.
Not to be "outdone" by our European and Canadian friends, the United States
already boasts a few cultural and legal examples that should raise the hair
on the back of any conservative neck:
a.. A photographer in New Mexico was hauled before the New Mexico Human
Rights Division for refusing to photograph a lesbian wedding based upon her
religious opposition to homosexuality. 9
b.. AT&T fired a man for refusing to sign a diversity policy that required
him to "value homosexuality." The man offered instead to sign a pledge to
not discriminate or harass anyone, but the company ignored his offer. 10
c.. Catholic Charities of Boston lost its license to perform adoptions by
refusing to place children in same-sex households. 11
Edmund Burke's famous quote, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil
is that good men do nothing" rings particularly true in this instance. This
nation continues to walk down a dangerous path in its response to homosexual
activism. Religious people and institutions face a very real possibility of
legal action taken against them for expressing their views. Maggie Gallagher
describes such a scenario: "In 1971, the IRS issued a decision redefining
the tax exemption as a public endorsement or subsidy. This means that the
IRS would strip an organization of its exempt status if its purposes,
although legal, were 'contrary to public policy.' It's not hard to imagine
an antidiscrimination law at the federal level, which polls suggest the
majority of Americans already support; look for a 5-10 point swing in public
opinion on gay marriage; add a new IRS commissioner who wants to make his or
her progressive mark, and religious groups would wake up to find themselves
playing in a whole new ballgame." 12
EQUAL PROTECTION, NOT PRIVELEGED PROTECTION, NEEDED
Homosexuals deserve equal protection under the law, protection guaranteed to
ALL Americans by the 14th Amendment. We oppose their agenda to elevate
themselves above every other citizen by securing extensive legal protections
from "insults" they deem "hate speech." Examples from other nations show the
damage to civil liberties caused by hate crimes legislation, but those
battles are just now beginning. America must avoid travelling down this
path, and conservatives must clearly communicate why. Our lawmakers must
understand that unlike Canadians, Americans revere our First Amendment
freedoms and will fight until our dying breath to preserve them, for
everyone.
Action Items
1) Inform your local, state, and nationally elected officials that you
oppose hate crime legislation.
2) Inform your nationally elected officials that you oppose the Employment
Non Discrimination Act. To find contact information for senators, go to:
www.Senate.gov. To find contact information for representatives, go to:
www.House.gov.
3) Pass this report on to those in your network.
4) Get candidates for office on the record this election-cycle about their
stances on ENDA and hate crimes legislation.
Shaun Waymire works with CNP Action, Inc., the sister organization of the
Council for National Policy, an educational organization founded in 1981.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End Notes
1.. Knight, Robert and Douthit, Lindsey. "Hate Crimes Laws Threaten
Religious Freedom." Concerned Women for America. 12 December 2005.
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9672&department=cfi&categoryid=papers
2.. Brinkmann, Susan. "Homosexuality: The Untold Story-The phantom gene."
Catholic Education Resource Center. 11 September 2008.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/printarticle.html?id=4222
3.. Sprigg, Peter. Homosexuality Is Not a Civil Right. Family Research
Council: Washington, DC, 2007.
4.. Brinkmann, Susan. "Homosexuality: The Untold Story-The phantom gene."
Catholic Education Resource Center. 11 September 2008.
www.catholiceducation.org/articles/printarticle.html?id=4222
5.. Barber, Matt. "ENDA Would Dismantle First Amendment Liberties."
Concerned Women for America. 11 May 2006.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/12949/MEDIA/family/index.htm
6.. "H.R. 1592-Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007."
Home School Legal Defense Association. 28 June 2007.
www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2007/HR1592/default.asp
7.. Knight, Robert and Douthit, Lindsey. "Hate Crimes Laws Threaten
Religious Freedom." Concerned Women for America. 12 December 2005.
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9672&department=cfi&categoryid=papers
8.. Knight, Robert and Douthit, Lindsey. "Hate Crimes Laws Threaten
Religious Freedom." Concerned Women for America. 12 December 2005.
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9672&department=cfi&categoryid=papers
9.. Jalsevac, John. "Christian Photographer Hauled before Commission for
Refusing Same-Sex Job." LifeSiteNews.com. 9 September 2008.
www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08013004.html target=_blank>
10.. Dailey, Timothy J. The Other Side of Tolerance: How Homosexual
Activism Threatens Liberty. Family Research Council: Washington, DC, 2006.
11.. Gallagher, Maggie. Banned In Boston: The Coming Conflict Between
Same-Sex "Marriage" and Religious Liberty. Family Research Council:
Washington, DC, 2007.
12.. Gallagher, Maggie. Banned In Boston: The Coming Conflict Between
Same-Sex "Marriage" and Religious Liberty. Family Research Council:
Washington, DC, 2007.
--
J Young
Jvisi...@live.com
Owner of Eric F Berg aka 'LC'
here's the entire collection of efber...@hotmail.com
http://tiny.cc/6hl5F |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:47 am Post subject: Jerk Young' pathetic plea... |
|
|
On 14 nov, 06:59, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
| Quote: | http://www.cwfa.org/articles/16029/CFI/family/index.htm#ref
Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to Silence People of
Faith 11/13/2008
|
Considering all the damages done by "people of faith", I'd say that
it's about fucking time that we silence them.
It's been long proven that the worst racists, the worst homophobes,
the worst bigots and the worst opponents to social progress are the
"people of faith". You are a very eloquent example.
À propos silence, Jerk Young, what will it take to make you shut up? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nosterill
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:47 am Post subject: Re: Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to |
|
|
On Nov 14, 6:59 am, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
| Quote: | http://www.cwfa.org/articles/16029/CFI/family/index.htm#ref
Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to Silence People of
Faith 11/13/2008
|
Hate is still hate - even when it comes from the pulpit. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
David Johnston
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:20 pm Post subject: Re: Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:59:01 -0500, "J" <Jvisions@live.com> wrote:
| Quote: | a.. Creating a federal hate crime defined as "bodily injury to any person
or.attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or
perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender
identity or disability of any person."
|
Oh, is that how we can tell who the people of faith are? They're the
ones who hate and want to hurt? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
•R. L. Measures
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to |
|
|
In article <2bfppe.1c1.19.1@news.alt.net>, "J" <Jvisions@live.com> wrote:
| Quote: | http://www.cwfa.org/articles/16029/CFI/family/index.htm#ref
Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to Silence People of
Faith 11/13/2008
By Shaun Waymire
...
The Matthew Shepard Act calls for6:
a.. Creating a federal hate crime defined as "bodily injury to any person
or.attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or
perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender
identity or disability of any person."
.... |
• Why the hell would anyone want to cause bodily injury to a person who
is body is already fucked up?
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilt•n¸.·´
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject: Re: Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:59:01 -0500,
"Jon Young"/"IBen Getiner" <Jvisions@live.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way
to Silence People of Faith 11/13/2008
|
ROTFLMAO!!!!
"People of faith." LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!
When *employed* by people who call THEMSELVES that,
take note of the person saying it -- and you will have found the
nearest hateful and mindless BIGOT.
And guess WHAT shuts up BIGOTS faster than anything else?
FACTS.
They can't HANDLE the TRUTH.
Since NO FACTS even EXIST that they can provide to support
their loathsome hate-agendas against personal liberties of girls,
women, and gays.
<Lying RRR Cult SWILL flushed>
(A good example of their inability to do that can be seen in
the two questions that they COWER from, in the SIG, below.) ---
-- Craig Chilton
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The Two Questions that Bigots RUN AWAY from...
Their Inability to Answer THESE Two Questions
with FACTS Indicts the RRR Cult, and PROVES
it to be a Crowd of Ignorant & Hateful Bigots.
The questions that NO one who opposes fully-legal same-sex
marriage, has EVER, to the best of my knowledge, been able to
answer factually:
"If a same-sex couple that's been cohabitating in a
community for 20 years gets the right to become
legally married to one another, and then ties the knot,
HOW could that possibly be detrimental in ANY way
to the marriage of any opposite-sex couple in that
community?
And...
"Congress, and several states have passed so-called
"Defense of Marriage Acts" (DOMA). Just WHAT suppos-
edly-detrimental factor could possibly affect opposite-
sex couples' marriages negatively, which could thus
justify so draconian a law? What do such laws "defend"
opposite-sex marriage AGAINST? What is the THREAT?"
Hey!! RRR Cultists! Inquiring SENSIBLE minds want to know.
And as Mark Sebree said on Aug. 7, 2008 --
Same sex marriage does not harm anyone, and does not
infringe on the rights of heterosexuals, and it does not confer
onto homosexuals any rights that heterosexuals do not already
have. Therefore, there is no valid argument against homosexuals
having the same right to marry the consenting single adult of their
choice in the same manner and for the same reasons as hetero-
sexuals currently enjoy, and having that marriage recognized as
legally valid and binding just as widely the marriage between a
heterosexual couple.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
The Brainiac
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:02 pm Post subject: Re: Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to |
|
|
(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilt?n¸.·´¯) ?? NO FACTS Support RRR Cult's Hate-Agendas! ??
<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:59:01 -0500,
"Jon Young"/"IBen Getiner" <Jvisions@live.com> wrote:
Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way
to Silence People of Faith 11/13/2008
ROTFLMAO!!!!
"People of faith." LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!
Since all people of faith are racist bigots, it's true. Political |
correctness is there to subvert God's will. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
E. Barry Bruyea
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:39 am Post subject: Re: Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to |
|
|
J <Jvisions@live.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to Silence People of
Faith 11/13/2008
Adherence to the will of the Church will enable God and Jesus to protect us |
from left wing liberal social engineering and political correctness.
Pray that you will not be influenced away from the ways of the Church and
socially engineered by the God, Church and Jesus Christ hating left. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Alan Ferris
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject: Re: Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:39:45 -0500, E. Barry Bruyea
<lobbyists@goaway.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Adherence to the will of the Church will enable God and Jesus to protect us
from left wing liberal social engineering and political correctness.
Pray that you will not be influenced away from the ways of the Church and
socially engineered by the God, Church and Jesus Christ hating left.
|
Lets just ignore history which shows the numerous deaths and
withdrawal of standard human rights when the churches get control of
the governments.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(") |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
•R. L. Measures
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject: Re: Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to |
|
|
In article <kg7th4dbgpl0snqagekv66g0uj18m84ldr@4ax.com>, Alan Ferris
<hairy.ferrit@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:39:45 -0500, E. Barry Bruyea
lobbyists@goaway.com> wrote:
Adherence to the will of the Church will enable God and Jesus to protect us
from left wing liberal social engineering and political correctness.
Pray that you will not be influenced away from the ways of the Church and
socially engineered by the God, Church and Jesus Christ hating left.
Lets just ignore history which shows the numerous deaths and
withdrawal of standard human rights when the churches get control of
the governments.
• Fortuately Thomas Jefferson did not Alan. |
³... A short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the
Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who
professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for
enslaving mankind, and aggrandising their oppressors in Church and State;
that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been
adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere
contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not
being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down
their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves
are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of
Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1810
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kelsey Bjarnason
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:38 am Post subject: Re: Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to |
|
|
[snips]
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:59:01 -0500, J wrote:
| Quote: | Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to Silence People
of Faith 11/13/2008
|
Interesting. The obvious implication is that the faithful *cannot* speak
without invoking hatred - because if they could, then hate crime
limitations simply wouldn't apply to them.
How nice of you to imply that faith equates to hate. Not sure how many
of the faithful will agree, but they should take that up with you.
| Quote: | The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council stated: "In Canada, we respect
freedom of speech, but we don't worship it." That's Canadian lingo for
intolerance of pro-heterosexual programming on its airwaves.
|
ROFL. "Intolerance of pro-heterosexual programming." What the hell are
you morons smoking? You really should check the TV sometime - other than
the Godder channels, I mean. Heterosexuality is rampant, characters
dating and/or marrying right left and centre. If constantly being in-
your-face with heterosexual couplings isn't "pro-heterosexual", it's hard
to imagine what is.
What it *isn't* is anti-gay... but one need not be anti-gay to be pro-
straight: the fact I like girls doesn't mean I have to oppose gays.
| Quote: | 1 Americans
beware, this growing animosity of religious viewpoints is spreading to
the United States.
|
Perfectly phrased: "this growing animosity *of* religious viewpoints".
Yes, we see that incessantly. Anti-gay movements, anti-abortion
movements, inability to differentiate between free speech and hate speech
and defending the latter, etc, etc, etc.
| Quote: | In fact, homosexual activists have made great
progress in pushing their agenda here at home and convincing the media
and large numbers of Americans that homosexuality is genetic.
|
Let's assume, for the moment, that it's not. *So what*? I don't care if
you're gay or straight or whether that's genetic or choice. Why do you
care what I am, or why?
| Quote: | Moreover,
the Democratic Party eagerly pushes hate crimes and gender-orientation
"discrimination" legislation through local, state, and national
legislatures that threatens the First Amendment rights of pro-family
individuals, businesses, and tax-exempt organizations.
|
Sorry, no, your first-amendment rights aren't affected at all. Nobody's
trying to stop your freedom of speech, or assembly, or of press, or of
religious view or practise.
The fact you folks can't tell the difference between free speech and hate
speech, however, speaks volumes on just what your motivations are.
| Quote: | These results solidify the conservative position that usurping religious
liberties over a non-genetic issue lacks common sense and good judgment.
|
Since nobody is remotely trying to usurp religious liberties, the point
being made is somewhat unclear. Further, genetics are not the only
determining factor in asserting or defending rights: a person handicapped
as a result of an accident has just as much expectation of not being
discriminated against due to his handicap than someone born that way.
| Quote: | Remember, a large bloc of the public believes homosexuality is genetic,
|
Again, whether it is or not is *at most* a curiosity to most of us, and
of real interest only to those who are homosexual - if even them. In the
end, the only folks I can think of offhand who would really care are the
folks trying to understand genetics... with the possible exception of
medicine, given that some medicines do affect people differently based on
race, gender and other factors and thus could, possibly, differently
affect a "genetic gay" from a "preference gay".
| Quote: | but science clearly shows otherwise. Conservatives must effectively
publicize this fact or risk an incremental loss of their First Amendment
rights through unconstitutional legislation.
|
Again, since nobody's trying to deny anyone their first amendment rights,
the point being made is unclear.
| Quote: | the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and the Local Law
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (Matthew Shepard Act).
ENDA would require businesses and religious organizations to hire people
who openly engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors, despite
sincerely held religious beliefs.
|
Oh, yes, how horrible, how totally dangerous, to be required to actually
pay attention to a person's credentials and capabilities, rather than
hiring them based on who they like to date.
Aside from the asinine notion that there's some sort of problem in such a
rule, I have to wonder just how indescribably stupid a person would have
to be, owning or managing a business, to base their hiring on who the
candidate *dates* rather than what they can do for the company.
| Quote: | 5 This means that a pro-family
institution like Focus on the Family
|
Pro-family? How odd; I haven't heard them campaigning for gay marriage
and gay adoption rights... yet marriage and the ability to raise kids
would seem a very important part of having a family, indeed, would seem
to *define* having a family.
Sorry, could you please point out where Focus on the Family, or other
"pro-family" organizations, have been campaigning for such rights? Or do
you in fact mean to say they're not pro-family at all, they're anti-gay-
family?
| Quote: | may face a lawsuit for refusing to
hire a homosexual,
|
If their basis for refusing to hire is that he (or she) is homosexual,
then yes, as they are not allowed, legally, to use this as a basis for
determining employability.
| Quote: | ending with a possible loss of tax exempt status or
worse.
|
Oh, boo hoo... they want the legal tax breaks, but don't want to follow
the law pertaining to employment. Simple solution: they can close their
doors and go out of business.
| Quote: | The Matthew Shepard Act calls for6:
a.. Creating a federal hate crime defined as "bodily injury to any
person
or.attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual
or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity or disability of any person."
|
Sounds good. Means I can't pound you into the ground for being an
insufferably religious prick, which, given your history around here, I'd
think you'd be damned grateful for.
| Quote: | By instituting national hate crimes legislation, our elected officials
would unconstitutionally elevate homosexuals, bisexuals, cross-dressers,
and transsexuals to a more protected legal status than everyone else in
the country.
|
Funny... the wording just "elevated" religious folks, immigrants and the
disabled to the exact same status. Presumably one cannot be immigrant,
disabled or religious without also being homosexual, that being the only
way to have the statement above make sense.
So, being religious means being homosexual, eh? News to us. When,
exactly, are you planning your "coming out of the closet" party?
| Quote: | 7 Such legislation would lead to the infringement and
repeal of First Amendment rights.
|
No, it wouldn't.
| Quote: | a.. In Sweden, a pastor was arrested and sentenced to one month in
prison
for preaching against homosexuality from the pulpit in his church.
|
No, he wasn't. He was penalized for hate speech. If he'd simply stuck
to preaching against homosexuality, he'd not have been in trouble.
| Quote: | b.. An Anglican bishop in England was investigated by police for
saying
that homosexuals "could and should seek medical help to 'reorient'
themselves."
|
Hmm... let's see:
<import>
Assistant Chief Constable Graeme Gerrard said: "We are aware of the
article put in The Chester Chronicle and have received a complaint."
He continued: "We will examine the issues raised in the complaint and
will speak to the reporter and the Bishop of Chester before considering
any further action."
</import>
Someone complained and the police, very properly, chose to look into it
to see if there was in fact an issue... or if it was just him speaking
his piece, ignore it.
To make this out as police "investigating him" for his statements is a
gross overstatement.
| Quote: | c.. Two films were banned in New Zealand for highlighting the link
between
AIDS and homosexual behavior.
|
I note you don't mention *which* films. I find one reference to two
films meeting the criteria, however. Here's a quote:
"Many of the society's attacks go back to the banning of two Living Word
videos by the Review Board in the late 90s. The fundamentalist Christian
videos promoted a thesis about gay men being paedophiles who became
parents and teachers so they could have sex with children to avoid
getting Aids."
Ah, so it's not "highlighting the link between AIDS and homosexuality",
it's anti-gay propaganda, portraying gays as paedophiles. Not surprising
they got banned.
However, the article further notes:
"[Censor Bill] Hastings says such videos wouldn't be banned today -
mainly because they represent such a dated view."
Or, in essence, they wouldn't be banned today, not because they're any
less hateful, but because few people today are so lost in the dark ages
as to take such crap seriously anymore.
| Quote: | d.. A Canadian man was fined $5,000 for refusing to print business
cards
for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives, even after citing his
religious beliefs.
|
Scott Brockie. Runs a print shop. Refused to actually do what he's in
business to do - printing - simply because the customers were "unwanted"
- gays and lesbians.
Since he prefers to ignore Canadian laws pertaining to discrimination, he
was, indeed, fined $5,000. Now it appears he may be on the hook for
$40,000 in legal costs, too.
He did, of course, have two simpler - and cheaper - alternatives. He
*could* have simply realized he's in the printing business and done his
job. Or he could have realized that not everything people will want
printed are things he's going to agree with, and closed his business
rather than risking having to print something "distasteful".
His choice. He chose to be a prick, chose to ignore the laws, chose to
get his ass sued, chose to face possible bankruptcy as a result.
Hopefully he's happy about his choices.
| Quote: | e.. The radio shows of Focus on the Family and Dr. Jerry Falwell were
warned not to broadcast anything critical of homosexuality by the
Canadian Broadcasting Board.
|
Can't be arsed to look this one up at the moment. Way too many issues
surrounding Falwell and FoF to sort through them.
| Quote: | a.. A photographer in New Mexico was hauled before the New Mexico
Human
Rights Division for refusing to photograph a lesbian wedding based upon
her religious opposition to homosexuality.
|
Same deal here as the printer: not everyone who wants photos is going to
be someone you want to take pictures of. Either close up shop, stay
home, close your shutters and disconnect the TV so you never have to risk
seeing anything "undesirable", or suck it up, sunshine.
| Quote: | b.. AT&T fired a man for refusing to sign a diversity policy that
required
him to "value homosexuality." The man offered instead to sign a pledge
to not discriminate or harass anyone, but the company ignored his offer.
|
This may well be the only legitimate incident you loons have. No, he
should not be required to "value" anything, nor should he be fired for
failure to "value" it - *particularly* since he was willing to affirm non-
discrimination. It should be noted the courts upheld *his* position.
| Quote: | c.. Catholic Charities of Boston lost its license to perform adoptions
by
refusing to place children in same-sex households.
|
Let's see...
They're running, in large part, off federal funding.
Massachusetts law recognizes same-sex marriage.
They refused to place with same-sex households.
Ya know, if you're getting paid to do a job and you refuse to do it, you
can expect to be fired. They were. They had a choice: either work as
the law requires them to, or close up shop. They apparently thought that
ceasing *all* adoption services was a better choice than doing the very
job they were paid to perform. I guess they really just didn't care
about the kids, after all.
| Quote: | Edmund Burke's famous quote, "All that is necessary for the triumph of
evil is that good men do nothing"
|
Indeed. However, doing evil - going out of one's way to treat others as
subhuman, in particular - is hardly something one should adopt as a
preferred behaviour.
| Quote: | rings particularly true in this
instance. This nation continues to walk down a dangerous path in its
response to homosexual activism.
|
Yes, indeed. And that dangerous path is "Treat gays like people, or face
the consequences." Golly gee, how horrible.
| Quote: | Religious people and institutions face
a very real possibility of legal action taken against them for
expressing their views.
|
If their views are hate speech, or their actions discriminatory, then
yes, they will face reprisals. As it should be.
| Quote: | Maggie Gallagher describes such a scenario: "In
1971, the IRS issued a decision redefining the tax exemption as a public
endorsement or subsidy. This means that the IRS would strip an
organization of its exempt status if its purposes, although legal, were
'contrary to public policy.'
|
Part of "public policy" being the equal treatment of its members.
| Quote: | EQUAL PROTECTION, NOT PRIVELEGED PROTECTION, NEEDED
|
Exactly right. No *special* rights for gays (or women, or blacks, or
left-handed redheads)... just *equal* rights.
| Quote: | Homosexuals deserve equal protection under the law, protection
guaranteed to ALL Americans by the 14th Amendment. We oppose their
agenda to elevate themselves above every other citizen by securing
extensive legal protections from "insults" they deem "hate speech."
|
Sorry, but it's not "the gays" who determine something to be hate speech
or not... it's the legal system.
That said, again, one wonders what, exactly, it is about religion that
makes it apparently impossible for its practitioners to speak their mind
*without* running afoul of hate speech laws.
This is particularly puzzling, as it almost invariably comes from a
religion repeatedly described as being about love. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Roedy Green
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:32 am Post subject: Re: Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:59:01 -0500, "J" <Jvisions@live.com> wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
| Quote: | Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to Silence People of
Faith 11/13/2008
|
The main things "people of faith" have had to say is "Kill Roedy, or I
am going to kill you."
I don't see any reason to protect that sort of speech.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Roedy Green
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:44 am Post subject: Re: Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:32:37 -0800, Roedy Green
<see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
| Quote: | On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:59:01 -0500, "J" <Jvisions@live.com> wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to Silence People of
Faith 11/13/2008
The main things "people of faith" have had to say is "Kill Roedy, or I
am going to kill you."
I don't see any reason to protect that sort of speech.
|
Christians don't understand the difference between "You should lower
your cholesterol" and
"kill all people with high cholesterol"
"Take people's kids away from them who have high cholesterol"
"Don't let people with high cholesterol marry"
"Fire all people with high cholesterol"
"Kick people out of their homes and apartments if you suspect them of
high cholesterol".
Go ahead and preach your idiotic irrational superstition about
homosexuality being wicked or unnatural, but I draw the line at
persecuting gay people.
If you want to preach coffee if wicked, then enforce your nuttiness on
yourselves ONLY.
Ditto Muslims, Mexicans, blacks or whomever you latest target hate
group is.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
E. Barry Bruyea
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject: Re: Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:32:37 -0800, Roedy Green
<see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:59:01 -0500, "J" <Jvisions@live.com> wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to Silence People of
Faith 11/13/2008
The main things "people of faith" have had to say is "Kill Roedy, or I
am going to kill you."
I don't see any reason to protect that sort of speech.
|
You mean the kind of speech that we see on the group calling for the
death of Canadian Soldiers? That kind of hate? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
E. Barry Bruyea
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: Re: Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:44:57 -0800, Roedy Green
<see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:32:37 -0800, Roedy Green
see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:59:01 -0500, "J" <Jvisions@live.com> wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to Silence People of
Faith 11/13/2008
The main things "people of faith" have had to say is "Kill Roedy, or I
am going to kill you."
I don't see any reason to protect that sort of speech.
Christians don't understand the difference between "You should lower
your cholesterol" and
"kill all people with high cholesterol"
"Take people's kids away from them who have high cholesterol"
"Don't let people with high cholesterol marry"
"Fire all people with high cholesterol"
"Kick people out of their homes and apartments if you suspect them of
high cholesterol".
Go ahead and preach your idiotic irrational superstition about
homosexuality being wicked or unnatural, but I draw the line at
persecuting gay people.
If you want to preach coffee if wicked, then enforce your nuttiness on
yourselves ONLY.
Ditto Muslims, Mexicans, blacks or whomever you latest target hate
group is.
|
And in your case, conservatives, soldiers or anyone else not left of
centre. What a bloody hypocrite. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
