'Natural family' called derogatory/Dis' a gay go to jail

[BlaznFattyz]

'Natural family' called derogatory/Diss a 'gay' go to jail

A special session of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being held today at the Stanford University Law School where lawyers are arguing whether the words "natural family, marriage and family values" constitute "hate speech" that could intimidate city of Oakland workers.

The words were used by two city employees who wanted to launch a group of people who shared their interests and posted a notice on a city bulletin board after a series of notices from homosexual activists were delivered to them via the city's e-mail system, bulletin boards and memo distribution system.

But Robert Bobb, then city manager, and Joyce Hicks, then deputy director of the Community and Economic Development Agency, ordered their notice removed, because it contained "statements of a homophobic nature" and promoted "sexual-orientation-based harassment."

The women, Regina Rederford and Robin Christy, also were threatened with firing from their city jobs because of their posting, according to their lawsuit against the city, which alleges Oakland's anti-discrimination policy "promotes homosexuality" and "openly denounces Christian values."...

Cont'd

You see there email later in the story, it seemed really harmless to me. Everyone sure seems to be getting offended easily.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

Re: 'Natural family' called derogatory to 'gays'

And a similar story on the same subject...

[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]Diss a 'gay'? Go to jail!
[/SIZE][/FONT]Two Christians in Australia have been indicted for criticizing Islam, and another for criticizing Zionism. A filmmaker has been threatened with arrest for using the word "homosexual" rather than "gay." Now a German priest faces jail time for publicly criticizing abortionists, and in Holland, "fornicators" and "adulterers" are protected classes and cannot be criticized.

All courtesy of the concept of federal "hate crimes" legislation, which unless defeated soon could be mandatory in the United States, warns a rising chorus of critics.

"All that matters are the delicate feelings of members of federally protected groups," said Michael Marcavage, director of RepentAmerica.com "Truth is not allowed as evidence in hate crimes trials. … A homosexual can claim emotional damage from hearing Scripture that describes his lifestyle as an abomination. He can press charges against the pastor or broadcaster who merely reads the Bible in public. The 'hater' can be fined thousands of dollars and even imprisoned!"

Cont'd

i think preaching the gospel out in the street is going to be attaked soon, and be illegal and listed as a hatecrime

 

[lunamoth]

Re: 'Natural family' called derogatory to 'gays'

You see there email later in the story, it seemed really harmless to me.

Inappropriate for a workplace? Yes. Hate speech? No.

Everyone sure seems to be getting offended easily.

You can say that again.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

they could just say, dont use our email like that. and the other person can so ok i wont. and that would be that. a second time would be punishable i think.

"A homosexual can claim emotional damage from hearing Scripture that describes his lifestyle as an abomination. "

how about.. a straight can claim emotional damage from hearing about gays that describe their lifestyle.

 

[Dor]

Well maybe not be appropriate to some for the workplace.

This quote worries me.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had ruled in 2005 that Oakland had a right to prevent the employees from posting a Good News Employee Association flier promoting traditional family values on the office bulletin board, even though homosexual city workers already had been using multiple communications systems in the city to promote their message to other workers, including the plaintiffs.

I did not see where anything happened to the ones that started the "gay and lesbian" orginization on the same bulletin board.

 

[lunamoth]

Well maybe not be appropriate to some for the workplace.

This quote worries me.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had ruled in 2005 that Oakland had a right to prevent the employees from posting a Good News Employee Association flier promoting traditional family values on the office bulletin board, even though homosexual city workers already had been using multiple communications systems in the city to promote their message to other workers, including the plaintiffs.

I did not see where anything happened to the ones that started the "gay and lesbian" orginization on the same bulletin board.

Well, I've not researched the incident and I'm not likely to, but if the GLBT info posted was to advertise outside organizations, meetings, etc., that would also be inappropriate. If it's to advertise the company as an equal-opportunity employer with support and full benefits to GLBT, then that is work-related and appropriate. Depends on the nature of the flier.

The key idea to me is whether it is related to the workplace or not.

'nuff said.

 

[cyberpi]

I once had an employer, small privately owned company, who decided one day to give a substantial bonus to people who got married, and to give another bonus for every newborn child. The company had a machine shop full of older guys (married, had their kids) along with an equal balance of young to middle aged engineers and technicians. I think the President stated that he wanted the company to appear more family oriented and successful to the larger corporation that it primarily did business with. Who knows the intent, but it definitely did not improve the internal employee relations. Despite the ruckus, it actually stuck for a number of years. Companies, like family homes, often acquire the personality of the owners or decision makers. Lucky the company wasn't in Oakland or ' Frisco.

 

[wil]

Re: 'Natural family' called derogatory to 'gays'

I think preaching the gospel out in the street is going to be attaked soon, and be illegal and listed as a hatecrime

You could be right, I think the 'G-d hates ****' crowd will be some of the first to get in trouble. Of course I had an abortion clinic bomber live across the street from me. (didn't know it at the time) But what I did see was seven kids, all run amok, they may have been giving them spiritual lessons but decency and common sense were overlooked. Also I'd watch the entire family take off down the street in the station wagon...not a child seat or seat belt amongst them.

And I still see the KKK marching and applying for parade permits with the ACLU in tow so it all baffles me...

 

[Silas]

Any Christian going around saying "God hates ****" or something like that is not Christian.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

no i would not classify them as christians either, but the problem is many people who already against true christianity and see it as offensive (because it shines a light on their sinful life or that no one is good without christ and it makes them have to make a decision of god or no god, heaven or hell, salvation or condemnation, light and darkness) these people will see these "god hates ****" characters and lump them with all of christianity and say "see how intolerant christians are!"

christianity's enemy is not so much those against christanity as it is the apostates or intolerant extremists within or under the guise of christianity.

 

[Silas]

no i would not classify them as christians either, but the problem is many people who already against true christianity and see it as offensive (because it shines a light on their sinful life or that no one is good without christ and it makes them have to make a decision of god or no god, heaven or hell, salvation or condemnation, light and darkness) these people will see these "god hates ****" characters and lump them with all of christianity and say "see how intolerant christians are!"

christianity's enemy is not so much those against christanity as it is the apostates or intolerant extremists within or under the guise of christianity.

You're right! I totally agree. There is a good side to all of this, however. Jesus said, "my sheep hear my voice and follow me." Within all of the unsaved God hating sinners lie some lost sheep. Thats why we must be bold and preach dispite opposition. God has decleared that "through the preaching of the gospel, the power of God will be seen" and those who are his will believe. The rest choose to supress the obvious truth in unrighteousness in vain hopes that they will not have to conform to truth.

 

[cyberpi]

Any Christian going around saying "God hates ****" or something like that is not Christian.

I agree and would judge that it is not Christian like... I found there is a group in Kansas doing quite a bit of that. I fear if I said they were NOT Christians though that I would be committing the same crime by implying, "Christ hates them"... which I do not believe you are doing. Could you explain your reasoning a little bit further Silas... how did you come to this conclusion?

 

[Silas]

I agree and would judge that it is not Christian like... I found there is a group in Kansas doing quite a bit of that. I fear if I said they were NOT Christians though that I would be committing the same crime by implying, "Christ hates them"... which I do not believe you are doing. Could you explain your reasoning a little bit further Silas... how did you come to this conclusion?

My reason for saying that those sort of people arent Christian, can be summed up in one word: Humilty. Only those that arent saved by grace can say something like that. Those who have been saved by grace know well; at least to some degree, their own wretchedness and will not dare assume to be better than any other sinner. "For by grace are we saved and not of ourselves. It is the gift of God, lest anyone should boast."

 

[cyberpi]

My reason for saying that those sort of people arent Christian, can be summed up in one word: Humilty. Only those that arent saved by grace can say something like that. Those who have been saved by grace know well; at least to some degree, their own wretchedness and will not dare assume to be better than any other sinner. "For by grace are we saved and not of ourselves. It is the gift of God, lest anyone should boast."

I once said, "Pat Roberts is not a Christian"... what I meant by it was that I did not think he was being Christian like in calling for the assasination of Hugo Chavez. I personally think Hugo Chavez is on track to being an authoritarian dictator but that is irrelevant in that calling for others to not be Christian and to go kill the man is not Christian like. For what it is worth I wrote Pat a rebuking letter too but I am sure it was among many. But I would not want to imply, "Christ hates people who..." I believe he would rebuke and that would be it.

I was going to suggest one of the 10 commandments... using God's name in vain. Imagine if I said, "your neighbor hates you"... or "your neighbor thinks you are a sinner"... or even positive, "your neighbor loves you". It is a character judgement but more importantly, I don't speak for your neighbor unless your neighbor wants me to. I can only speak from myself. Your neighbor might disagree with me, see things differently or say them differently. In fact your neighbor might get mad at me for using his/her name in vain to impress a point on you, I should think. The point is, I submit that if I am to judge something then I should use my own name. That is the crime or sin that I see in the OP... breaking one of the 10 commandments.

 

[Silas]

I once said, "Pat Roberts is not a Christian"... what I meant by it was that I did not think he was being Christian like in calling for the assasination of Hugo Chavez. I personally think Hugo Chavez is on track to being an authoritarian dictator but that is irrelevant in that calling for others to not be Christian and to go kill the man is not Christian like. For what it is worth I wrote Pat a rebuking letter too but I am sure it was among many. But I would not want to imply, "Christ hates people who..." I believe he would rebuke and that would be it.

I was going to suggest one of the 10 commandments... using God's name in vain. Imagine if I said, "your neighbor hates you"... or "your neighbor thinks you are a sinner"... or even positive, "your neighbor loves you". It is a character judgement but more importantly, I don't speak for your neighbor unless your neighbor wants me to. I can only speak from myself. Your neighbor might disagree with me, see things differently or say them differently. In fact your neighbor might get mad at me for using his/her name in vain to impress a point on you, I should think. The point is, I submit that if I am to judge something then I should use my own name. That is the crime or sin that I see in the OP... breaking one of the 10 commandments.

I personally dont know if Pat is a Christian (I dont know anything about him), but what I do know is that his statement about Chevez, though not very smart, wasnt unChristian. Have you ever read the psalms? What about the prophets of the OT and the diciples of the NT...they were very zealous for God's glory and God's righteousness, but to the nonChristian, they would sound a bit crazy and probably evil?

 

[cyberpi]

Silas, so you believe that it is unChristian if someone says, "God hates a ***.", but NOT unChristian if someone says, "We should assasinate a ***"? Pat took it a step further and called for an assasination to save money... as in, "We should assasinate a *** to save money."

Media Matters - Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuela's president

Assasination is murder, condemning a neighbor, and one of the 10 commandments. If preaching sows a seed then I submit that preaching, "We should commit SIN xyz" sows a seed for evil. Disagree Silas?

 

[Silas]

Silas, so you believe that it is unChristian if someone says, "God hates a ***.", but NOT unChristian if someone says, "We should assasinate a ***"? Pat took it a step further and called for an assasination to save money... as in, "We should assasinate a *** to save money."

Media Matters - Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuela's president

Assasination is murder, condemning a neighbor, and one of the 10 commandments. If preaching sows a seed then I submit that preaching, "We should commit SIN xyz" sows a seed for evil. Disagree Silas?

My bad! I didnt know that Mr. Robinson said that. I thought he said something like "we should assaniate that spanish president (I forget his name). I didnt know he called the guy an inapporiate epitaph.

 

[pfw]

they could just say, dont use our email like that. and the other person can so ok i wont. and that would be that. a second time would be punishable i think.

"A homosexual can claim emotional damage from hearing Scripture that describes his lifestyle as an abomination. "

how about.. a straight can claim emotional damage from hearing about gays that describe their lifestyle.

Didn't you know only whites can be racist, only straight people can discriminate against other sexualities, Christianity is the only 'stupid & offensive' religion... at least that's how things are turning out in the UK.

 

[Paladin]

My bad! I didnt know that Mr. Robinson said that. I thought he said something like "we should assaniate that spanish president (I forget his name). I didnt know he called the guy an inapporiate epitaph.

(epithet)


Freudian slip?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Re: 'Natural family' called derogatory to 'gays'

And a similar story on the same subject...

[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]Diss a 'gay'? Go to jail![/SIZE][/FONT]
...and in Holland, "fornicators" and "adulterers" are protected classes and cannot be criticized.

I want to see some references. BlaznFattyz, I know this isn't your quote, it's from the article you are citing, but I have no clue what this is referring to. I suspect the author of the article doesn't either.