BREAKING: YouTube bans (suspends) LifeSite over video of Bp. Strickland refusing to take corona vaccine

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cathoholic

Guest

BREAKING: YouTube bans LifeSite over video of Bp. Strickland refusing to take corona vaccine​

LifeSite’s YouTube account is suspended for two weeks. Here’s how you can still access our videos.

Mon Dec 7, 2020 - 8:34 pm EST

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

By LifeSiteNews staff

December 7, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – YouTube has once again censored LifeSiteNews, this time for an episode of The Bishop Strickland Show in which Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas discussed why he will not be receiving an abortion-tainted coronavirus vaccine.

The episode of the bishop’s was labeled “medical misinformation.” LifeSite will appeal the decision, which suspends our YouTube account that boasts more than 200,000 subscribers for two weeks.

The last time LifeSiteNews was banned from YouTube – less than a month ago – it was a one-week suspension of our account. That censorship came almost immediately after LifeSite uploaded audio of a Canadian doctor slamming lockdowns and discussing the ineffectiveness of masks.

To continue watching our videos, please use the following alternatives:
 
The more I read up on mRDA vaccines, the more I think I’ll pass on them.

As far as YouTube doing this, it’s really no different than being banned from CA is it ?
 
CradleRC58 said:
As far as YouTube doing this, it’s really no different than being banned from CA is it ?
Click to expand...
I’m in agreement with you. It’s a privately owned asset. They can prohibit what ever free accounts they wish.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
I’m in agreement with you. It’s a privately owned asset. They can prohibit what ever free accounts they wish.
Click to expand...
I find it weird that the right, the side of property rights, has become so hostile to private property.
 
StudentMI said:
Okay. Just saying it’s like you guys want a fairness doctrine of your own.
Click to expand...
If you knew what I posted about this paradigm many times in the past, or asked, you would know you are wrong. At least if you are referring to me.
 
Last edited:
LifeSite could just self host their videos and not be bound to the content rules of another.
 
StudentMI said:
I find it weird that the right, the side of property rights, has become so hostile to private property.
Click to expand...
Quite. I suspect that the people who get up in arms every time YouTube or Twitter removes a certain kind of political content are often the very same people who think that businesses should be allowed to discriminate in the provision of goods or services for a same-sex wedding or that employers should not be compelled to fund contraception through health insurance. Also, there are plenty of social media platforms that do not restrict content in this way; it is not the fault of the left that the likes of BitChute and Parler are basically right-wing echo chambers.
 
I’m not sure why some leftists want to force others to take a vaccine. Those who receive an effective vaccine would not acquire covid-19 from others.
 
EmilyAlexandra said:
I suspect that the people who get up in arms every time YouTube or Twitter removes a certain kind of political content are often the very same people who think that businesses should . . . not be compelled to fund contraception through health insurance.
Click to expand...
Do you support COMPELLING businesses to fund contraception through any means?
 
Last edited:
I think that any business that hires people from the general public have no business dictating medical decisions those people may need. If a Catholic organization employs only Catholics then they may enforce Catholic views upon them. The minute they employ others not of the Catholic faith and offer health insurance, those people have a right to expect that the Catholic Church is not to make medical decisions for them. If the organization has a problem with health insurance company policies, they shouldn’t offer health insurance. If they do offer it, they don’t have the right to limit what the insurance company provides.

If I’m a young person taking BC and happen to work for a catholic company, the company needs to explain why it can determine my healthcare benefits. What if I need a hysterectomy but another treatment exists? Should the church have a right to deny coverage for my procedure if my doctor thinks otherwise? There needs to be a bit more clarity on health insurance benefits if the Church can make these medical decisions.
 
Much of what you said were partial truths.
Some were flat out wrong.
Parts correct.

Overall I disagree with your position.
 
Every catholic that is serious about their faith disagrees with mine. That’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion just as much as I am entitled to mine.

If I made a blatant error, I’m willing to correct it. If it’s just a different opinion, I’m not. Many non Catholics see BC pills as part of their healthcare and should have the type of coverage they want. You most likely think that a catholic organization shouldn’t have to provide that coverage…which is determining what their healthcare should consist of. My opinion is that a business has no business being involved in my healthcare…it’s between me and my doctor.

The organization that don’t want to provide BC in their policies, are they also not allowing BC coverage for those needing it for non contraceptive reasons? I don’t know the answer to that. If so, they are making medical decisions for that employee. Should a company be able to make medical decisions for its employees or should that be the domain of the insurance company, the doctor and the patient? A whole can of worms could be let loose if medical decisions are made by whether a company wants to cover it or not.

Back in the old days, companies that were mostly male dominated…like construction…didn’t cover pregnancy. I paid for all my pre and post natal care of my two kids completely out of pocket. Was that ok?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top