Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course not and all hate crime laws should be abolished
I definitely agree.
The OP needs to read the First Amendment to the Constitution. Any such laws would be illegal, and if passed in clear violation of the Constitution, the First Amendment would be rendered inoperative and meaningless. Even so, the left has this as a goal, and has been advocating for limits on free speech for years, especially wishing to limit the right of churches to speak on political issues, as well as moral issues such as homosexuality.
Hillary Clinton is pushing for such limits on free speech when it comes to Islam. Speaking to OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) Secretary General, she committed to using "some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming" against those who choose not to submit to the new speech requirements (as outlined in the "The Ten Year Programme of Action", which recognizes Islamic speech standards as being binding on the entire world, including non-Muslim countries), which the OIC is pressing to have the United Nations adopt through an international resolution to counter "Islamophobia," and to call on all States to enact laws to counter it.
It's important that we make our voices on matters such as this heard loud and clear. We can no longer afford to brush off these calls for limits to our freedom as being nothing more than the rantings of a few left wing nut cases. These people are serious, and have been gaining the attention and support of the leftist media, and politicians. We have a recent example in the so-called "controversy" involving Chick-fil-A CEO.
Our response to these incidents should be loud, unified, and forceful, so that our politicians and the world knows where we stand, and that we aren't going to put up with this "political correctness" garbage any longer. The support of Chick-fil-A and it's CEO was exactly right. It totally backfired on the left, as did their attempts to shut down Rush Limbaugh last winter.
The biggest sin in the religious community is the money they pay themselves. Let's start there. Maybe then they'll be a little more accepting of others.
And though they may not atually pay themselves much is salary - they live like royalty.
But on the subject of restricting speech - no way!
It's bad enough that certain groups use antagonizing tactics to push their agendas and stop free speech and other rights, no matter how much they do not like it (that includes religious groups, the gay rights groups, blacks, white hate groups and all others.) They are not winning support - if anything they make the rest of us appreciate free speech and willing to fight for it.
The money churches receive is primarily through the donations of members (the offering plate).
Secondly, if you think it's a good idea to limit the income of a group or company in order to control them, you'd better think hard about what that means. What kind of country would we be living in? It certainly wouldn't be America.
Isn't this what some big city Mayors and city council members have advocated by vowing to not allow Chick-fli-A to do business in their jurisdictions? The intent is clear: do damage to the income potential of the company.
Should the government legislate what Christians can say? Would you like to see preachrs charged with a hate crime if they say homosexuality is an abomination?
In this day and age, a Preacher who says homosexuality is an abomination is running a huge risk of hurting his church and losing parishoners. Religious people and people who attend church regularly prefer a Preacher who is not judgmental and that includes keeping quiet when it comes to voicing his opinion on a person's sexual preference. There is way too much chatter lately on people who are homosexual and WHO CARES??? I for one don't care one way or the other and am so dang tired of hearing about it on here, in the news, in the newspapers and more. I am straight..does anyone REEEEALLY care? I doubt it!
Actually, the Courts have ruled in favor of Same-sex marriage in most cases it's been presented. It's winning in the Federal system right now.
No they do not, since passing legislation based on religion is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Try learning the Law some time. Legislators aren't legally allowed to say, "Hey, Christianity opposes same-sex marriage, so let's pass this law banning it to be in line with Christian belief".
Follow the discussion, ok ?
The courts have not ruled DOMA or bans against ssm unconstitutional on the basis of violating the religion clause of the 1st amendment. The reason ? Because they do Not establish religion or prevent the free exercise thereof.
Moral values, whether derived from religious texts, dreams, sitting under a tree for decades, are an absolutely 'allowable' source of support or opposition to laws. If every legislator said, 'Hey, my religious beliefs support feeding the hungry, so let's increase Food Stamp funding,' would that be illegal. Of course not.
Why don't you call it something other than marriage? Why is that word so important to you? It's not about rights and privileges at all, is it? It's that word. You want it, don't you? You want what comes from God, but you have to corrupt the meaning of the word to receive it.
So what you received is a lie.
There is no such thing as gay marriage despite what the law says, what the state says, or what the dictionary says.
Why don't you call it something else? You don't own the word.
In your opinion, you can say same sex couples aren't married, but those couples and the state say they are. That is all that really matters.
I think gays at this point instead of making things better for themselves are actually causing themselves great harm. They are pushing being accepted as normal too hard and IMO they are instead making themselves look like spoiled weirdos.
In addition, when gays go after a business like they did, it makes businesses IMO enact a soft bias against hiring gays because now they equate gays as trouble makers more.
Soft bias means for me they won't get the job, but the interviewer will go through the motions and be polite but far less gays are going go to get a fair shake at employment due to this IMO.
This is kind of like the LA riots where the rioters came out on TV to say they hate all white people and then the white people created this surge of gun purchases throughout the country for self protection.
Cause and effect.
It's like the gays showed people they feel their cause trumps everything else, including in their opinion the right for someone else to have their opinion if it differs from theirs.
I think this threw the attempts at gay acceptance back about twenty years just as the LA Riots threw race relations back at least 20 years.
I think that is what just happened.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
