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.
I read it too, and I don' see any "hyperbole", it's straight forward grammar and vocabulary. I'd like to see you disprove any of it.
It's a weird mix of news and opinion. And the fact is that the police don't know who is responsible for the crime. No one was caught! So it's a little crazy to "report" that a certain category of people are responsible for a crime when no one has even been charged for the crime yet.
The gays that trashed that church were acting out of hate, hate of Christianity.
This is a perfect example of anti-gay ignorance and bias. You remind me of the people who said that the federal building in Oklahoma City must have been bombed by people from the Middle East - until Tim McVeigh was charged.
You do have a bit of a point here, however, it doesn't make what these people did OK and its a hate crime.
I agree it's not okay, but we don't know if gay people did it, and we won't know if it's a hate crime until the motive of the perpetrator has been determined.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,372 posts, read 54,609,917 times
Reputation: 40846
Quote:
Originally Posted by msconnie73
Burdell ... I reread that post of Filet's and it was obvious to me and others that he was being sarcastic about the "horrible people" comment. We should just drop the matter and move on with the original topic.
Being that Filet had previously chosen to label people speaking against churches as 'church haters', a typically lame defense against opposing points of view, I really have no idea what he/she meant. For all I know they belong to the self-righteous who label the Catholic Church a cult as some very large religious assemblies choose to do. IMO the world has seen more than enough of "My God is better than your God"
If you look at the San Francisco Craigslist Rants and Raves section, or go to the San Francisco Chronicle's website at sfgate.com and read the comments about the gay-related news stories, you'll see a lot of gay bashing - way more than you would see on other cities' websites or expect to see on an SF website.
People are commenting on the SF craiglist saying crap like that because they probably ARE NOT from SF. But that would be the place to post to stir it up and bash people.
NOt much fun basing gays on the South Carolina Craiglist or South Carolina newspaper forum because you wouln't reach as many gays to upset that way.
If i want to go bash inbred hillbillies i probably won't go to the Oakland Tribune or SF craiglist to do it. I would hit the West Virginia paper and craiglist to MAKE my point.
If i want to go bash inbred hillbillies i probably won't go to the Oakland Tribune or SF craiglist to do it. I would hit the West Virginia paper and craiglist to MAKE my point.
Doesn't inbreeding produce homosexual offspring? All the gays in SF are from small towns across America. Are they the offspring of inbreds?
By the way, marrying of cousins is not permitted in WV or KY, but it is allowed by law in NY, NJ and CT where there are high concentrations of Hasidism.
So you are all for NO limits on freedom of speech, but are now saying it is wrong for a teacher to say anything that can be perceived as negative about Christianity to a bunch of 16 years olds. So you DO want limits but only ones you agree with?
Okay, I think I'm getting a handle on how freedom of speech and free excercise of religion and the 1st amendment works in America.
Everyone is allowed to say whatever they like about anyone else however hateful. ALL speech is FREE speech.
EXCEPT: if it is defamatory slander or libel.
EXCEPT: if it is against a Religion (especially the Christian religion) because religious freedom is protected by the 1st amendment as well and trumps anybody else's freedom of speech. As in the case in the quote above.
EXCEPT: Churchs are allowed to slander groups such as homosexuals because a Churches right to free excercise of religion trumps homosexuals' rights against protection from defamation.
Am I getting close yet? Feel free to correct me if I have it wrong.
Yep. Pretty much!
Excellent post
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.
