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.
Do you not favor people having to (in some cases be forced to) accept others? all I need is a yes or no.
No – when that forced acceptance infringes upon a persons Constitutional right to freedom of speech, religion, press, petition and assembly. In the case in question Stephen Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. have been ordered, in part:
14. The Panel finds, and the Panel orders as follows: (http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf - broken link)
Quote:
a) That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund’s witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.
This would be a violation of the First Amemdment of The Constitution of the United States.
Yes – as long as "acceptance" does not infringe upon the Constitutional rights of the person and that they are not in violation of the law. Which in essence is tolerance rather than acceptance.
How did an OP about some crack-pot wanting all atheists out of the country devolve into which poster is trying to assassinate whose character? For the record I have been reading all along and its obvious that Sanspeur is in the right. Salt & Light likes to change the subject by attacking those that don't agree with him and ignoring any points he can't answer. Anyone who thinks that legislating against hate crime inhibits any freedom other than those to actually commit the crimes has no leg to stand on from the beginning. The only people who would be against it are those that want to incite or commit those criminal acts.
Alice kind of reminds me of the Taliban in Afganistan. If you don't believe like them, you'll be at the wrong end of a gun and shot.
Although Alice didn't advocate shooting anyone.....you can still see from the tone of her editorial that if someone didn't agree with her and was vocal....she might just feel the need to "defend" her country against a dissenting opinion.
No – when that forced acceptance infringes upon a persons Constitutional right to freedom of speech, religion, press, petition and assembly. In the case in question Stephen Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. have been ordered, in part:
14. The Panel finds, and the Panel orders as follows: (http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf - broken link)
This would be a violation of the First Amemdment of The Constitution of the United States.
Yes – as long as "acceptance" does not infringe upon the Constitutional rights of the person and that they are not in violation of the law. Which in essence is tolerance rather than acceptance.
Even in the bible it says that we aren't supposed to slander - which is what these people are doing. these aren't the only "victims" of not being allowed to slander.
I've known of countless ex-cons who 'found God' in jail and lived it when they got out. But the nonbelievers don't want those ones discussed so they focus on the ones who reverted. Isn't that the way of some men, focus on the worst?
it is called denial, smart people use it alot, so they don't have to quit drinking, or confess that there is a God and He is Good.
Dude we all have a cross to bear.....or how ever you want to say it ........I would fight for your right to express what you thing and Believe, most folks would tell you that PEACE. I STILL HOPE YOU FIND TRUTH.....
Boy, what little this person know. Look how much damage religion has done to the real Americans of this country the "Native Americans" it almost wiped the out.
in south Texas and in the notheast the native americans were canibals.........since they ate native americas and sread desease and terminated themselves.......what restitution should we get?
in south Texas and in the notheast the native americans were canibals.........since they ate native americas and sread desease and terminated themselves.......what restitution should we get?
Where the heck do come up with this stuff?
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.
, Bravo
.
