HOUSE APPROVES “ANTI-HATE” BILL

[Bunyon]

"Please do not put words into my mouth. I made my expression of moral opposition to homosexuality clear when I publically marched in the streets of Toronto to express my desire that God ordained marriage to be between a man an a woman."

Yet you agree that the tribunal was right in forcing bed and breakfast owners to allow sodomy in their home. What if the men were going to coduct a satanic ritual before going to bed. The law would equally apply to this situation also.

 

[Bunyon]

"is an evangelical pastor who wrote a letter to the editor questioning the promotion of homosexuality in the public school system."

So we christians should not be allowed to write letters to the editors without penalty of 100 thousand plus dollars? We can't question what goes on in the public schools where our children attend and our tax dollars are spent.

 

[OCC]

"Yet you agree that the tribunal was right in forcing bed and breakfast owners to allow sodomy in their home. What if the men were going to coduct a satanic ritual before going to bed. The law would equally apply to this situation also."

Maybe the people should have no right determining who can and can't stay in their bed and breakfast based on religious beliefs. Anyone with the money to pay should be able to stay. If they can't, well...that would be religious discrimination I believe...maybe along the lines of a hate crime?

 

[OCC]

"A "professional printer"? Not if he ain't doing the job he's paid to do.

"From a speech given at the un by Dr. Chris Kempling"...highly informative reference there. Kind of like when I said "From a book" as a reference back when I was in school."

Well, King James, I did not think you would impune my integrity. I'll give you the web site if you need it. It was from a catholic site. But you should be able to independantly verify these things with ease, that is if you want to take you blinders off.

So you do not allow for a person who simply refused to perform a certain action because he honestly thought he would be promoting an offense to his God. If the Satanic Church asked him to print papers saying Satan was the savior, would you expect him to do that also? This is were your reasoning leads.
-------------------------------------------------
Bunyon, how did I impugn your character? I was addressing the credibility of the sources. But hey, if I impugned your character you did a good job of doing it back to me with the above statement?

I wouldn't expect him to print papers saying Satan is the saviour. I would hope he wouldn't. But if he is a professional, he will. That is his job. Otherwise, in the courts he could be accused of religious discrimination. If he wants to be moral, he can be a good conservative and quit that job and go find one where there is less pressure to do something immoral and against the faith.

churchmouseguy...from what I've heard over the years on american christian radio...christmas is on the way to becoming illegal in your country. The difference being...you need the government to say something is ok or not ok for you. here...real Christians don't care. We will celebrate Christmas if we want to...and face the consequences.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Bunyon:
Yet you agree that the tribunal was right in forcing bed and breakfast owners to allow sodomy in their home. What if the men were going to coduct a satanic ritual before going to bed. The law would equally apply to this situation also.

Every professional business open to the public must keep in mind that they may be asked to do things that are legal but against their moral character. And there are laws in place to prevent such businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

As far as I am aware, most US states also have similar discrimination laws.

[ September 29, 2005, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

[Bunyon]

So what you are saying is people of concious should not apply to own businesses in the public arena. Daniel should have just refrained from being the Kings right hand man.

The reason we will never see eye to eye on this is because you have apparently bought into the gay agenda myth that they are a minority group like indians and blacks. They aren't. So no special laws should have been made concerning them in the first place. Especailly ones concerning personal beliefs and words.

And do you really think a place where all ideas have traditionally been welcomed like the editorail letters page should be off limits to Christians and their speach. That one professor was writing his dissenting opinion about the gay education class in the public school. It was a letter to the editor. This is the place set aside for such disent. But apparently not for Chrisitans, unlesst they have 100,000 dollars or so in fine money.

 

[Gold Dragon]

In your state of New Mexico, as of 2003, it would also be illegal to refuse homosexuals in a bed and breakfast based on their homosexuality.

New Mexico Legislature : House Bill 314

46th legislature - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - first session, 2003


AN ACT

RELATING TO HUMAN RIGHTS; MAKING IT UNLAWFUL TO DISCRIMINATE BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY; PROHIBITING QUOTAS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY.

...

"28-1-7. UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE.--It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for:

...

F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any [individual] person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to [an individual's] a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Bunyon:
The reason we will never see eye to eye on this is because you have apparently bought into the gay agenda myth that they are a minority group like indians and blacks. They aren't. So no special laws should have been made concerning them in the first place.

It is illegal to discriminate against homosexuals. It is illegal to discriminate against heterosexuals. Both minority and the majority positions are protected against in discrimination legislation. They are always worded so that discrimination against the majority position is also not permitted. What I'm saying is that it is irrelevent whether homosexuals are a minority or not.

 

[OCC]

Right on GoldDragon...it is irrelevant whether homosexuals are a minority or not...discrimination against ANYONE is illegal. Good job fellow Canuk!

 

[Bunyon]

No, to make a person a special class of person based on what they do in the bedroom is ludicris. How about pedophiles. What about members of the Man-Boy-love association a tax exempt federally recognized non-profit organization. There stated orientaion is twords little boys, but they are protected because we can't discriminate based on oriention. If they want to stay in the bed and breakfast with a family of small children, the family has no say according to your philosophy. If they want to teach kindergarten, same story.

Private Catholic schools can't refuse openly homosexual groups from having functions in their school. So much for the sentence that supposedly allows people to exercise their conciousness. So much for the Christian who wants to be a doctor, but does not want to do or refer abortions.

In your socialistic haze, you are well on your way to a totalitarain state where the conscience of the state cannot be infringed. You will insist on free practise of religion as long as the final authority, the state, is not infringed upon.

We are allowed to discriminate. A restaurant can ask anyone to leave or refuse service at anytime as long as it is not based on race, or religion, or sex. Sexual orientaion is not in there completely yet, see the military, but it will come I am sure. Besides does New Mexico determine what is right or not. It is as much a travasty in the states that do it here as it is there.

A school can discriminate on grades or extracurricular activies. An emplyer can discriminate base on experience, job interview, poor background check, even someones vocabulary. You are wrong King James, discrimination is only protected based on the criteria the state has set up. A fine leagal point you should be aware of as a future lawyer. Sexual oriention should have never been a protected class.

According to what you are trying to say a resturant could not ask someone to leave if they had just cleaned the sweage and stunk to high heaven. Think about it.

And the gender Identity part would allow a man to hang out in the women's public shower.

[ September 29, 2005, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: Bunyon ]

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Bunyon:
How about pedophiles. What about members of the Man-Boy-love association a tax exempt federally recognized non-profit organization. There stated orientaion is twords little boys, but they are protected because we can't discriminate based on oriention.

Pedophilia is not a protected sexual orientation. There is the whole issue of consent there.

Originally posted by Bunyon:
If they want to stay in the bed and breakfast with a family of small children, the family has no say according to your philosophy. If they want to teach kindergarten, same story.

If someone admiting to be a pedophile wants to stay at your bed and breakfast with small children, I would hope you call the police instead of refusing him service.

Originally posted by Bunyon:
Private Catholic schools can't refuse openly homosexual groups from having functions in their school. So much for the sentence that supposedly allows people to exercise their conciousness.

huh?

Originally posted by Bunyon:
So much for the Christian who wants to be a doctor, but does not want to do or refer abortions.

Abortion is neither related to hate propoganda nor discrimination legislation.

Originally posted by Bunyon:
A school can discriminate on grades or extracurricular activies. An emplyer can discriminate base on experience, job interview, poor background check, even someones vocabulary.

Agreed, it is legal to discriminate based on those criteria.

Originally posted by Bunyon:
Sexual oriention should have never been a protected class.

It is not a protected class but a protected criteria.

Originally posted by Bunyon:
According to what you are trying to say a resturant could not ask someone to leave if they had just cleaned the sweage and stunk to high heaven.

Smell is also not a protected criteria.

Originally posted by Bunyon:
And the gender Identity part would allow a man to hang out in the women's public shower.

I don't see how discrimination law has anything to do with who can be in what showers or washrooms. Males can be in women's public showers, regardless of orientation. They'll just get kicked out, regardless of orientation if the women don't feel comfortable with him around.

 

[Bunyon]

-----"Pedophilia is not a protected sexual orientation. There is the whole issue of consent there."--------------------------------------

To act on it is a crime. To have the oriention is not. And orientation is protected. Therefore, one could not descriminate against the president of the Man Boy love association just because he is a member and advocates sex between boys and men. You would have to let him stay in your Bed and Breakfast even if you have young sons. Sexual orientation is protected. His oriention is protected. Where does it specify any certain oriention?

Again, the simple fact that a person is a member of the Man Boy love association and advocates sex between boys and men is not a crime. His oriention is protected, even if it is illegal for him to act on it.

----"Smell is also not a protected criteria."--------------------------------------------

That is my point. We can discriminate except for those criteria and classes which are specificly protected by law. Discrimination in and of itself is not illegal.

-----"I don't see how discrimination law has anything to do with who can be in what showers or washrooms. Males can be in women's public showers, regardless of orientation. They'll just get kicked out, regardless of orientation if the women don't feel comfortable with him around. "------------------------------------------

You missed the whole point. The New Mexico law you cited said, Gender Identity. Which means, transvestites and transgender. A man dressed as a woman cannot be denied based on "gender Identity". A business could not refuse a transvestite a restroom attendant job. Because gender Identity is protected. You cannot refuse to let a transvestite adopt children. Or interview female athletes in the locker room, if women do it. etc. According to the letter of the law. it only says "Sexual orientation" and "gender Identity" it does not specify.

 

[Gold Dragon]

In the New Mexico law, the first section is a definitions section.

New Mexico Legislature : HOUSE BILL 314

...

"28-1-2. DEFINITIONS.--As used in the Human Rights Act:

...

P. "sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived; and

Q. "gender identity" means a person's self-perception, or perception of that person by another, of the person's identity as a male or female based upon the person's appearance, behavior or physical characteristics that are in accord with or opposed to the person's physical anatomy, chromosomal sex or sex at birth."

...

 

[church mouse guy]

Here is a picture of the ad in question in the Hugh Owen case. If ever something should have been a non-issue, here it is. Canada clearly does not enjoy the freedom that we have in America.

http://www.eunacom.net/SecularNews.htm

[ September 30, 2005, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: church mouse guy ]

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
Here is a picture of the ad in question in the Hugh Owen case. If ever something should have been a non-issue, here it is. Canada clearly does not enjoy the freedom that we have in America.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/bibl_hate3.htm

http://www.eunacom.net/SecularNews.htm

In the religious tolerance link, this information was also presented.

Watson stressed that the ruling did not ban parts of the Bible. She wrote that the offense was the combination of the symbol with the biblical references. Owens, in fact, had published another ad in 2001, without complaint, that quoted the full text of these same four passages.

 

[church mouse guy]

A distinction without a difference. This is clearly a legal attempt to attack Christianity as the verses in question clearly teach that sodomy is a sin. Here we have a court putting a man in jail for publishing Christian teachings.

 

[Bunyon]

Thanks for that link Chruch mouse guy.

Well Gold Dragon. The first definition is good news for me. Is it so defined in Canada?

The second part is just like I said. If a man decides he is a woman and dresses as such he can not be discrimnated against, that means he gets to stay in the Girls Dorm. He gets to use the ladies restroom in public places. He gets to be the mom, of adopted children. He gets to teach and confuse kindergarteners.

" in accord with or opposed to the person's physical anatomy, chromosomal sex or sex at birth."-- He decides and everone else must play along.

The only way you can call that ad hateful is if you assume you know what the guy was thinking and what his motivation was. That is presumption, and it shows a certain level of hate for traditional christains, or at least a disregard for them.

Also, you are actully advocating, by your agreement with the penalty against the mayor, that a Christian should be fined for simply refuseing to declare pride in the Gay community. This is were this will all lead. You will have to agree, advocate, or keep your mouth shut.

[ September 30, 2005, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Bunyon ]

 

[Bunyon]

"Watson stressed that the ruling did not ban parts of the Bible. She wrote that the offense was the combination of the symbol with the biblical references. Owens, in fact, had published another ad in 2001, without complaint, that quoted the full text of these same four passages."-------------------------------------

Worship the Golden image or be fed to the lions! At all cost do not offend the King, who wishes to be God.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This thread is on page 10.

It will be closed no earlier than 0800 EDT today.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Closed at 0800 EDT