This was emailed to me, I am not sure what the link is (somewhere on worldnetdaily.com I guess)...but I'll give the author below:
A Christian organization fighting on behalf of religious and speech rights is going to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge an appellate court decision that found municipal employers could censor words such as "marriage" and "family values" because they are hate speech and could scare workers.
At the same time, those municipal officials for the city of Oakland, Calif., were allowing employees to exchange epithets such as the N-word, the appeal said.
The worst type of crime you can commit in the liberal PC, ACLU America is to hurt some one's feelings. Of course, to liberals things like marriage and family values are offensive, but back when things were better these were things that people strove for and wanted to have happen in society.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Hate Speech?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
Well, if you actually cared about the facts enough to investigate the issue, rather than letting worldnetdaily crap in your mouth and tell you it's ice cream, you'd know that they weren't censoring the words "marriage" and "family values", they removed a poster that advocated discrimination against gays (as per their administrative regulations) for phrases such as “[t]o oppose all views that
seek to redefine the Natural Family and Marriage.”
The were told that they could re-post the flyer if they removed the verbiage that was condemning the homosexual lifestyle.
http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/PDFS/Opinions/GoodNewsruling2-2005.pdf
Philip,
They most certainly were substituting Gay rights for Christian speech. It was government censorship.
1. It was not "Christian Speech". It was a pledge to resist homosexuality.
2. The law is well settled that employers have the right to edit or censor speech in the workplace. That is why you cant tell the secretary that you want to bury your face in her bazongas.
3. They were offered the option of displaying the poster if they removed the verbiage about opposing homosexuality
4. If some homosexuals put up a poster advertising a group that had as part of their mission statement to oppose Christianity, I would expect it to be taken down as well.
5. The workplace is not the place to argue about deeply held political and religious beliefs, let alone to condemn people for their lifestyle
Philip,
Momosexuality is a CHOICE. I have seen Homosexuals demand that Christianity be banned, etc., and their banners and posters were not taken down.
You mix apples and oranges in your examples. Sexual harassment is not the same as what the incident was.
Momosexuality is a CHOICE
Yeah, I'm sure that millions of people choose to be the most discriminated against minority in the U.S.
Even if it is, so what? This IS America, you know.
I have seen Homosexuals demand that Christianity be banned, etc., and their banners and posters were not taken down.
IN THE WORKPLACE?!? I'm gonna call bullshit on that statement right now.
Phil,
I lived in CA and saw it openly happen in LA. You can get away with any crime if you are Gay in a liberal district. I've also seen the Homosexual activists spread manure through out the entire 3rd floor of a building just because they weren't allowed to enter the office of the Traditional Values Coalition. They also defaced the entire building in the name of their choice. I was not sorry to see hem hauled off in cuffs by the Anaheim police.
I was not sorry to see hem hauled off in cuffs by the Anaheim police.
As is only proper. What's your point? They did some dumb shit and they got arrested - The "Good News Employee Association" put up a poster with some dumb shit and it got taken down.
All is well.
You can get away with any crime if you are Gay in a liberal district....I was not sorry to see [t]hem hauled off in cuffs by the Anaheim police.
Are you mentally impaired by chance?
Philip,
Do you honestly think you made any points by condescending? If you did, you are the one mentally ill.
Do you honestly think that you made any points by contradicting yourself within a single paragraph?
Do you recognize that trying to insult the beliefs of other people when your own beliefs are so immature and self contradictory just makes you look foolish?
Phillip
Your opening comment to this thread is so illuminating (to your mindset).
You're equating a defense of the definition of "Natural family and marriage" with "advocating discrimination against gays". What a stretch. As far as the definition goes, it is what it is, no? (And it doesn't much matter what your definition of "is" is.)
So exactly how is it that people pointing out what an actual definition is, can be justifiably accusesd of discrimination in your mind? Please share your illuminating brilliance with us all.
You're equating a defense of the definition of "Natural family and marriage" with "advocating discrimination against gays".
No. You obviously didn't read the opinion, did you? The poster listed as part of the groups stated purpose “[t]o oppose all views that
seek to redefine the Natural Family and Marriage.”
Also,
" Plaintiffs’ deposition testimony confirms the
anti-homosexual import of their definitions of “natural family,”
“marriage” and the meaning of the flyer’s exhortation to “preserve
our workplace with integrity.”
So, they admitted that the message on the poster was "anti-homosexual" and one of the stated purposes of the group is to "oppose" homosexuals.
That has no place in a work environment and it was against the administrative regulations (rules).
So, what we have here are some radical so-called "Christians" who didn't want to obey workplace rules and decided to look for an activist judge to back them up. Sounds like the tactics you are always accusing the left of using.
Philip,
Now that you've shown yourself to be a Gay rights only person, do you think anyone listens to you?
Part of free speech is the ability to oppose choices people make.
philip,
You people are merely trying to “frame” the debate.
Let’s just cut straight to the gist of your argument, which is “if you don’t agree with me you must be a bigot”. It doesn’t matter what reasoning or arguments the other side may use, for a lefty it always comes back to the same old tired argument.
blamin--
I think you're right. A lot of Democrats embrace Lakoff's view that the sheeple (you, me, and anyone who disagrees with a radical) believe the way we do because issues are framed in a certain way with words. Some even think we've been robotically infected by the corporate media with what Dawkins calls "memes." The left alone knows The True Path, and anyone who disagrees literally is a puppet of the evil sinister forces of classism, hegemony, racism, sexism, homophobia, and imperialism.
Of course, it would help if their wacky beliefs had the property of being, well, true.
philip is the stereotypical liberal...just give him more rope and let him hang himself...
Hey, I respect anybody's right to disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. I think that many aspects of gay culture are not that healthy.
The point that you are all working very hard to ignore is that this was a workplace environment.
People should not have to deal with their co-workers publicly condemning them at work. THE PLANTIFF ADMITTED THAT THE MESSAGE ON THE POSTER WAS ANTI-GAY That was against the rules. If it was some gay group bashing Christians, they would be just as wrong and I would be making the same argument whereas you guys jump all over anyone that is considered anti-Christian, but remain strangely silent in the face of these types of actions against gays.
Part of free speech is the ability to oppose choices people make. I agree 100%. But we don't have complete freedom of speech at work.
For example-If we frequent the same bar, I can walk up to you every time I see you and say that you are an ignorant son of a bitch. That is perfectly legal and fine. But, if we are co-workers and I say that to you at work, it could easily be considered harrasment and I would be disciplined and eventually fired. That our freedom of speech can be limited in the workplace is a matter of settled law in this country
if you don’t agree with me you must be a bigot”.
No, just wrong.
I have no problem with the emplyoyer's actions provided the policy is applied equally. Personally, I think the employer has the right to do far more than he legally can these days including discriminating in hiring. I don't see where the government gets off telling anyone how to run their business as long as they aren't physically harming anyone. If their personal beliefs offend enough people, business will suffer and he'll change. That's as it should be. But now I must actually read the article before I comment further.
I happen to know a number of straight people suck, too.
Good for you, Jim. Happy for ya.
Post a Comment