Ruffled Feathers Over Duck Dynasty - Page 11
+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 137
Like Tree58Likes

Thread: Ruffled Feathers Over Duck Dynasty

  1. #101
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    Canada doesn't have a First Amendment.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  2. #102
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Here is a more objective article about it. It refers specifically to distributing literature, unsolicited, that targets a specific group of people in such a way that could incite violence against them.

    Anti-gay pamphlets broke law, Supreme Court of Canada says | Toronto Star

    OTTAWA?In an important decision that upheld the main anti-hate provisions in Saskatchewan?s human rights law, Canada?s top court ruled vitriolic anti-gay speech in flyers distributed by a Christian activist is not protected by the Charter.

    In doing so, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously struck down a small part of the province?s human rights code as an infringement on free speech and religion. It removed vague wording that prohibited the distribution of material that ?ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity? of people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

    However, the high court, including Chief Beverly McLachlin, gave broad endorsement to the law?s equality protections for a vulnerable minority against the spreading of ?hatred.?

    Justice Marshall Rothstein, writing for the 6-0 panel, found two of four flyers handed out by William Whatcott in 2001 and 2002 in Regina and Saskatoon crossed the line into ?harmful? discourse, but two did not.

    The court said two of Whatcott?s hand-delivered leaflets had ?hallmarks? of hatred, targeting gays as a menace that could threaten the safety and well-being of others, referring to respected sources like the Bible to lend credibility, and using ?vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred.?

    ?It delegitimizes homosexuals by referring to them as filthy or dirty sex addicts and by comparing them to pedophiles, a traditionally reviled group in society,? wrote Rothstein.

    The court said the law?s purpose is to ?prevent discrimination by curtailing certain types of public expression? but it is tailored, and does not ban private expression of views.

    B?nai Brith lawyer Marvin Kurz said the ruling targets only speech that is ?the worst of the worst.?


    ?It doesn?t matter whether I?m offended by what Mr. Whatcott says,? said Kurz. ?The question is whether there?s going to be harm.?


    Ontario?s human rights code does not have the exact same ban on hateful publications or flyers that Saskatchewan had. Kurz said Wednesday?s ruling nevertheless counters a backlash that had been growing against the use of human rights laws and solidifies overall efforts to fight harmful speech, whether it be anti-gay or anti-Semitic.

    Kurz added the court did not establish a hierarchy of rights, or conclude that equality rights should trump freedom of religion and free speech.

    ?What it says is religion isn?t the only right, and religion cannot be used as a cloak for illegal activity; religion cannot be used as a cloak for hate.?


    That's hardly the same as having an opinion of homosexuality or saying it's wrong. It's distribution of hate literature that could incite violence that's the issue, not a thought or a statement or an opinion.
    Last edited by freddieflounder101; 12-26-2013 at 08:01 PM.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 6 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  3. #103
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    Canada doesn't have a First Amendment.
    You are correct, however it is a very legitimate fear among people I know. If that was not a concern, there would be less push back against gay rights. Churches not being able to not hire a homosexual, Pastors not being able to preach that homosexuality is a sin. Even labelling the Bible a hate book. Before you say about Freedom of Speech we have had this debate before and plenty of people were in favoured of those bans. If Gay rights activists were not so bent on limiting the rights of the other side, then maybe there would be more of a live and let live attitude. No, not among everyone, but of the people more to the center of the issue.

    ~Bonita~

  4. #104
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    You are correct, however it is a very legitimate fear among people I know. If that was not a concern, there would be less push back against gay rights. Churches not being able to not hire a homosexual, Pastors not being able to preach that homosexuality is a sin. Even labelling the Bible a hate book. Before you say about Freedom of Speech we have had this debate before and plenty of people were in favoured of those bans. If Gay rights activists were not so bent on limiting the rights of the other side, then maybe there would be more of a live and let live attitude. No, not among everyone, but of the people more to the center of the issue.
    Gay people do not want to label the Bible a hate book, or limit anyone's rights. I agree that it's a fear, but it's not a legitimate one; it's based on paranoia, the same paranoia that assumes that gay people are looking to convert heterosexuals. It's not logical and it's not real. What are these rights you think gay people want to stop others from having?

    I don't believe for one second that it would be "live and let live"...all gay people want is the same rights you & I have.
    Alissa_Sal and Jessica80 like this.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 6 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  5. #105
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freddieflounder101 View Post
    What are these rights you think gay people want to stop others from having?

    I don't believe for one second that it would be "live and let live"...all gay people want is the same rights you & I have.
    The same rights that I listed above. You can not determine what is a legitimate fear of someone else. Are you telling me that there are no liberals that would like to make it illegal for Pastors to preach that homosexuality is sin or to read for the passages in Romans that say that it is? That there are no liberals that think that it should be illegal for a church to not hire a secretary that is openly gay? It is not unreasonable at all to think that that is the liberal agenda.

    ~Bonita~

  6. #106
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    The same rights that I listed above. You can not determine what is a legitimate fear of someone else. Are you telling me that there are no liberals that would like to make it illegal for Pastors to preach that homosexuality is sin or to read for the passages in Romans that say that it is? That there are no liberals that think that it should be illegal for a church to not hire a secretary that is openly gay? It is not unreasonable at all to think that that is the liberal agenda.

    Well I am a liberal, and I'd estimate that the vast majority of my friends are liberals -- but not my husband or some others -- and I live in proximity to and work in NYC...hotbed of such stuff. I have never in my entire life met anyone who thought that any of those things should be illegal, except for discriminating against somebody in terms of hiring simply because they are gay. Ever.

    I can determine what is a legitimate fear if "legitimate" means that's it's a fear of something that could actually happen and really exists. I've never heard or read of anybody thinking the things that you state above. Ever.
    Alissa_Sal likes this.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 6 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  7. #107
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freddieflounder101 View Post
    You're missing my point. I'm not saying you're not religious. I'm saying that A&E'S reasons for "suspending" him are not due to religion. They don't care how Christian he is, he can talk about Jesus and religion all day long (which he often does) and they would not suspend him for that. Their reaction was to his public statements about homosexuality, NOT to his Christianity. They would not care what religion he said he was, or if he said he was an atheist, once he made those statements, THAT was the issue.
    AGAIN.. HE DOESN'T.. if you read what has been edited out of some of the shows and understood Christianity you would understand the portions being edited out.. are portions of their religion. So you are wrong.. they do care.. "how Christian he is"
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

  8. #108
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivergallery View Post
    AGAIN.. HE DOESN'T.. if you read what has been edited out of some of the shows and understood Christianity you would understand the portions being edited out.. are portions of their religion. So you are wrong.. they do care.. "how Christian he is"
    No...they don't care how Christian he IS. They just don't air things that are over-the-top religious because they want to appeal to a wider audience. They KNOW how Christian he is, they've known all along, and they hired him and treated him like a star. The family knows they edit out that stuff and they know why. It's a business decision.

    If they objected to his Christianity then the whole show would not even exist.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 6 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  9. #109
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freddieflounder101 View Post
    Well I am a liberal, and I'd estimate that the vast majority of my friends are liberals -- but not my husband or some others -- and I live in proximity to and work in NYC...hotbed of such stuff. I have never in my entire life met anyone who thought that any of those things should be illegal, except for discriminating against somebody in terms of hiring simply because they are gay. Ever.

    I can determine what is a legitimate fear if "legitimate" means that's it's a fear of something that could actually happen and really exists. I've never heard or read of anybody thinking the things that you state above. Ever.
    Same here. I have literally never heard any liberal say that they wanted to limit what is preached in churches, or lable the Bible as a hate book (I don't even think I've ever heard the phrase "hate book" before) or anything else. I would agree with Laurie that the only thing that even comes close to that is the issue about whether you can not hire or fire someone for being gay. Even with that though, if we are talking about something that is within a church setting, I think it's terrible but I also assume it's legal (and will continue to be legal) because of the separation of church and state.

    For example, just the other day on the news I read about a teacher at a Catholic school in Seattle that was fired for marrying his partner. The real story was about how the students and many of the other teachers at that same school staged a large protest over his firing. But as far as the actual firing goes, while I think it is terrible, I do understand that he signed a contract stating that he would abide by certain teachings of the Catholic church, and therefore given the fact that they are a private religious institution, they are within their rights to fire him. So that's already an issue that comes up, and I'm pretty sure that my attitude towards it is pretty common among liberals.

    For the rest of it, it just sounds like paranoid fear mongering that someone (not a liberal) has whipped up to make sure that people keep resisting gay rights. And yes, I do think that it's fair to suss out whether or not something is a legitimate fear depending on whether or not it's based in reality. I can be deathly afraid that aliens are going to pop out of my morning coffee and eat my eyeballs, but I think it would be fair enough for others to point out that my fear is not based in reality and therefore it's not really acceptable of me to try to outlaw coffee drinking.
    freddieflounder101 likes this.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  10. #110
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    Same here. I have literally never heard any liberal say that they wanted to limit what is preached in churches, or lable the Bible as a hate book (I don't even think I've ever heard the phrase "hate book" before) or anything else. I would agree with Laurie that the only thing that even comes close to that is the issue about whether you can not hire or fire someone for being gay. Even with that though, if we are talking about something that is within a church setting, I think it's terrible but I also assume it's legal (and will continue to be legal) because of the separation of church and state.

    For example, just the other day on the news I read about a teacher at a Catholic school in Seattle that was fired for marrying his partner. The real story was about how the students and many of the other teachers at that same school staged a large protest over his firing. But as far as the actual firing goes, while I think it is terrible, I do understand that he signed a contract stating that he would abide by certain teachings of the Catholic church, and therefore given the fact that they are a private religious institution, they are within their rights to fire him. So that's already an issue that comes up, and I'm pretty sure that my attitude towards it is pretty common among liberals.

    For the rest of it, it just sounds like paranoid fear mongering that someone (not a liberal) has whipped up to make sure that people keep resisting gay rights. And yes, I do think that it's fair to suss out whether or not something is a legitimate fear depending on whether or not it's based in reality. I can be deathly afraid that aliens are going to pop out of my morning coffee and eat my eyeballs, but I think it would be fair enough for others to point out that my fear is not based in reality and therefore it's not really acceptable of me to try to outlaw coffee drinking.
    You may think it is unfounded, but many legal experts do not. They actually already have passed a law that would make it possible. They may not have used it for that purpose yet, but the wording of the law makes it possible for it to happen.

    In February 2010, Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, and Michigan-based pastors Levon Yuille, Rene Ouellette, and James Combs filed a federal lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, challenging the Act?s constitutionality. As Christian leaders with a duty to teach God?s Word on moral issues, such as homosexuality, Glenn and pastors Yuille, Ouellette, and Combs have ?willfully? and actively engaged in expressive conduct regarding the morality of homosexuality?conduct that could subject them to investigation and prosecution under the Hate Crimes Act, which does not limit its prohibitions to physical acts of violence.

    Home | AFLC Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Review Appellate Court Decision Upholding Federal

    I mean we are just supposed to trust Eric Holder or whoever comes after him right?

    Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality. However, Holder has said that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, not to prosecute speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/


    House Republicans want all violent crimes to be punished appropriately, including those motivated against someone due to their personal traits like race, nationality or religion. This bill, however, goes far beyond reasonable means, threatening religious freedom, freedom of speech, equal justice under the law and basic principles of federalism, according to Republican Leadership.

    The bill includes ?sexual orientation? and ?gender identity? as part of a big tent agenda to prosecute violent crimes more harshly if they are motivated by "hate." However, the bill does not include certain other classes, like senior citizens, unborn children, pregnant women, members of the military, police officers, or victims of prior crimes. It is unfair, and unjust, to protect one group more than any other.

    More importantly, this bill threatens freedom of speech and religion because religious leaders or groups could be prosecuted for speaking out on their religious beliefs. They could be seen as having biased motives for violence, though this would be uneasily defined or proved because of so few details defined in the bill. The same people could be prosecuted under federal conspiracy law for ?aiding and abetting? if a person influenced by their speech commits a supposed ?hate crime.?
    http://www.gop.gov/blog/09/04/29/hat...threatens-free
    Last edited by GloriaInTX; 12-27-2013 at 02:13 PM.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions