**Chick fil A emboldens LGBT mob, Donates to** Southern Poverty Law Center who authors Hate Map Listing Christian Groups as Targets

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnR77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, I asked for news stories, but you gave me a blog post on the Org’s own website.

Vanco decided to no longer have the Ruth Institute as a client. In my reality, that is in my world not an attack by a mob.

As I said before, reading the Ruth Institute for a bit, the inference is that any child who is born to or parented by anyone other than June and Ward Cleaver is a “victim”. Can you just imagine how you would react if someone called your children “victims” because they were your kids? In my world, that is not love.
 
Could you please document George Soros’ connection to Chick-Fil-A?
 
So first i would say i dont know much about the Ruth Institute (and for a discussion on freedom of speech and religion one doesn’t need to know much about them). From a first glance it appears it is disagreeing with the sexual revolution that has happened in the west, which the Church also disagrees with the sexual revolution (don’t know if they hold the same reasoning as the Church). The problem with groups like the SPLC is they define a group as “hate group” and then try to use their resources to censor them. First part on what authority does the SPLC have define someone as a hate group? If it is anyone who disagrees with them,why can’t a different group use this reasoning to define the SPLC as a hate group. The framers of the Constitutiom dealth with this problem by talking about a market place of ideals, if you disagree with someones speech then debate them not censor them. When a group or individual censors others it tells me that they either don’t know their own position fully or they are scared of the other persons position.
The in thing in popular culture (which the SPLC implores too) is to label an individual/group as hard right (like hard/far right is illegal somehow). The term hard right is never defined properly and it is used against people that historically been left wing. Example former President Obama has talked critically of “Cancel Culture” and mainstream news sitrs have written articles about how Obama is a Conservative.
SPLC is one of those groups who uses the political and financial resources to label their opponents and censor them. Hence why people who believe in freedom of speech and Religion don’t think highly of them.
 
Last edited:
Lysander said:
So first i would say i dont know much about the Ruth Institute
Click to expand...
www.splcenter.org

Anti-LGBTQ

A central theme of anti-LGBTQ organizing and ideology is the opposition to LGBTQ rights or support of homophobia, heterosexism and/or cisnormativity often expressed through demonizing rhetoric and grounded in harmful pseudoscience that portrays LGBTQ people as threats to children, society and...
www.splcenter.org www.splcenter.org

SPLC is very clear what defines anti-LGBT

The Ruth Institute refers to children of gay parents as “victims”.
 
Don’t care what SPLC labels other groups ( in fact their hate map has been proven false repeately in the past) My question is do you think groups that disagree with the SPLC (or insert group) have a right to express their views? Also please address whole comment not just one sentence.
 
Last edited:
Lysander said:
have a right to express their views?
Click to expand...
The SPLC does not have the legal authority to stop anyone from legally “expressing their views”. Do you have examples of the SLPC denying someone their civil rights?

I believe in the Constitution of the US as I am a US Citizen. If I were in France I would obey their speech laws. Free speech is not unconditional.
 
Please address whole comment and don’t take four words out on context and argue it. I never said SPLC has legal power (or implied it), it is true the use soft power (lobby of politicians and social media). Freedom of speech should be almost absolute (other than death threats/call to violence which is US law). It should be that way in all countries.
Google has labeled the SPLC as a trusted flagger. Also the SPLC has labeled apart of the Cathecism of the Catholic church as hatefull.
 
Last edited:
“Should be” is not real.

In the United States, we are granted our civil rights by the Constitution. One is not free to, say, accept the terms of service on a message board like this then make posts that violate the TOS. One is not free to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre.

Free speech comes with great responsibility. I take that responsibility seriously. I believe in our Constitutional Civil Rights.
 
Again adrees whole statement of mine, not two words. This argument falls apart. Social media platforms are being given tax breaks and receivr money from the government to run. Even if they were totally private that would not grant them TOS to violate American law in America. Otherwise all private companies could do that. Private Company A saids Child label good, American law says no. But hay they are a private company.
On the old yelling fire agrument, how does proclaiming same sex partners is bad for children the same as yelling fire? So don’t bring it up.
Argue in a debate with people, don’t falsely label them and try to censor them.
 
Last edited:
I will bet you my dog (and I LOVE my dog) that Catholic Answers Forums (the only social media platform I mentioned) does not get
Lysander said:
Social media platforms are being given tax breaks and receivr money from the government to run.
Click to expand...
Lysander said:
Even if they were totally private that would not grant them TOS to violate American law in America.
Click to expand...
Free speech is limited. If you do not like that law, run for office of lobby to change the laws.
Lysander said:
how does proclaiming same sex partners is bad for children
Click to expand...
That is not a comparison I drew. I stated that calling children who are not raised by both biological parents in traditional marriage as “victims” is uncharitable.

Causing mass panic by yelling “fire” in a crowd is also uncharitable.
 
social media I ment Facebook and twitter. On saying something is not free speech because it is uncharitable. I say who gets to define that? One could say SPLC labeling Franklim Graham as a hatefull person is uncharitable therefore censor SPLC.
Also there are already lawsuits against some platforms TOS. Just because a company is grtting away with something doesn’t make it right or legal. Just means the system hasn’t caught up with them.
My final comment Free Speech good, debating positions good. Censoring and labeling opponents bad
 
Last edited:
Lysander said:
On saying something is not free speech because it is uncharitable. I say who gets to define that?
Click to expand...
My last post on this topic, it is going far afield.

I have failed to make myself clear.

The law of Christ is how I determine what is and is not charitable. Basic Gospel.

The Civil Liberties in the US allow people the freedom to be charitable or uncharitable in their speech. Each of us also has the civil liberty of “freedom of association”. While Joe Smith may choose to associate with and publicly praise or donate to one group, Sally Jones is free to disassociate, publicly criticize or not donate to the same group.

As the SPLC does not have the legal authority to censor speech, I am sure we can both agree that they have freedom to criticize other groups and vv.
 
He loves the #1 Chick Fil A sandwich meal, with a diet lemonade, large fry, and barbecue dipping sauce?
 
TheLittleLady said:
40.png
Lysander:
So first i would say i dont know much about the Ruth Institute
Click to expand...
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/anti-lgbt

SPLC is very clear what defines anti-LGBT

The Ruth Institute refers to children of gay parents as “victims”.
Click to expand...
Actually, I doubt those words are ever specifically used. The Institute would see any children who are deprived of a father and a mother as victimized to some degree because of the deprivation of not having, knowing and being loved by both of their progenitors.

That is not the same thing as claiming the children are positively victimized by gay parents. That would be you trying to misrepresent something never claimed by the Ruth Institute.
 
I gave up counting the times that the RI website talked about “victims”. When someone pounds a term over and over again, it usually demonstrates an attitude held by the author.
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
The SPLC claims to root out hate, but only appears to see it from the right-side of the politicial spectrum. No thanks.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch
Click to expand...
That was my take as well. I noticed they listed the SSPX and “The Singing Nuns” for anti-Jewish conspiracies, despite no evidence of hate crimes and a rabbi speaking out on their behalf, but didn’t list any of the mosques Anwar al-Awlaki preached. I also don’t see a lot of mention on their site regarding Catholic (read pro-life, socially conservative teachings) being vandalized. Let’s not forget they don’t list groups like Antifa, despite actually assaulting people.

Somewhat related: this is from their website on Radical Traditional Catholicism:
Radical traditionalists are not the same as Catholics who call themselves “traditionalists” — people who prefer the old Latin Mass to the mass now typically said in vernacular languages — although the radicals, as well, like their liturgy in Latin.
Click to expand...
What the heck does that mean? Sounds like a bit of an underhanded dig at anyone with a traditional bent.

Edit: by no means am I defending a sedevacantis position (Singing Nuns) or trying to turn this into an SSPX vs FSSP vs NO discussion. I’m just trying to point out what I see as bias and inconsistencies in how they determine and label “hate.”
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
As the SPLC does not have the legal authority to censor speech, I am sure we can both agree that they have freedom to criticize other groups and vv.
Click to expand...
They also have the wealth, social clout and bully pulpit to attack, demonize, and shut down groups that are far less well-placed than they are. The SPLC should be using their megaphone with far greater care and concern for the public good than they have shown. They are being utterly irresponsible as an organization ostensibly concerned with civil rights and justice.

This same criticism applies to the press and to social media companies. There is a great deal of distrust, hate and discord being sown by the very people who claim to be unifying culture. More like moulding culture to their own proclivities and sensitivities, which as hardly the same thing as the good of society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top