State's 'hate crimes' code used against 'pure speech'

[Bennie_P]

So to your mind, that excuses/justifies what they did?

There is no way what so ever that I could condone the agitators in the incidents that you highlighted, they are completly in the wrong.

But so were the “christians” in the other articles, regardless of the area.

I’m not justifying either group, but the point is, one group is asking to become a protected class in order stop the other from exercising their freedom of speech. That is what I’m opposed to personally. I don’t know if the Christians were completely wrong as in any counter politcal protest in public, but they may have crossed the line. The point is should the line they cross be considered hate? Which many where accused of, though, in most cases that didn’t stick.

 

[Elric]

I’m not justifying either group, but the point is, one group is asking to become a protected class in order stop the other from exercising their freedom of speech. That is what I’m opposed to personally. I don’t know if the Christians were completely wrong as in any counter politcal protest in public, but they may have crossed the line. The point is should the line they cross be considered hate? Which many where accused of, though, in most cases that didn’t stick.

None of those examples had anything to do with freedom of speech. They went beyond that.

Doing things like trying to disrupt a legal function (which both groups did) is not exersising free speech, neither is throwing projectiles (condoms), people or handing out flyers with things like “God hates fags” (which is actually wrong anyway) or “sharing testimony” with someone until police are forced to interviene.

Expressing the opinion of “I dont agree with homosexuality” or “according to my beliefs, homosexuality is a sin” however is exercising free speech and is protected.

The “christians” in these examples were wrong to do what they did. But not only that, in some cases they went against their own beliefs. They chose to be deceptive about their intentions and their actions and/or chose to act as though rules/laws that applied to everyone else were beneth them. Basically they chose to lie about what they were doing.

The thing that got me was that many of the articles reporting these events also chose to be deceptive in the way they reported them.

Most of these examples should probably not be considered a “hate crime”, but as you pointed out they didnt stick anyway.

 

[rpp]

But Elric, those pro-homosexual protesters were either not charged with any crime, or were only cited for charged with misdemenors. None faced any jail time and no significant fines were levied.

The anti-homosexual protesters, whose actions were in public places and were much less disruptive, were charged with felonies. They face large fines and jail time.

If you want to pretend that there is no discrimination, go ahead. We only have to look at history to see what happens when people do that.

 

[Elric]

But Elric, those pro-homosexual protesters were either not charged with any crime, or were only cited for charged with misdemenors. None faced any jail time and no significant fines were levied.

So what are you trying to say, the “christians” were justified in what they did?

I have already stated that both “sides” were wrong and were not exercising free speech.

The anti-homosexual protesters, whose actions were in public places and were much less disruptive, were charged with felonies. They face large fines and jail time.

It doesnt really matter where the incidents occured, they were all trouble makers. None of them should have done what they did.

Please dont try and make it out like I am supporting “pro-gay agendas” when I am not.

If you want to pretend that there is no discrimination, go ahead. We only have to look at history to see what happens when people do that.

I condemned all the trouble makers in the examples provided, regardless of their beliefs or sexuality. I didnt even hint at there being “no discrimination” or anything like that.

It is interesting how you want to bring history into the debate, because it is what we have done in the past that necessitates the “hate crime” legislation.

Perhaps it is part of societies pennance for what it has allowed to happen in the past.

 

[rpp]

So what are you trying to say, the “christians” were justified in what they did?

I have already stated that both “sides” were wrong and were not exercising free speech.

It doesnt really matter where the incidents occured, they were all trouble makers. None of them should have done what they did.

Please dont try and make it out like I am supporting “pro-gay agendas” when I am not.

I condemned all the trouble makers in the examples provided, regardless of their beliefs or sexuality. I didnt even hint at there being “no discrimination” or anything like that.

It is interesting how you want to bring history into the debate, because it is what we have done in the past that necessitates the “hate crime” legislation.

Perhaps it is part of societies pennance for what it has allowed to happen in the past.

Your refusal to see that equal justice is not given to anti-homosexual protesters does not change the fact that these people are persecuted by law enforcement while pro-homosexual activists are given a walk. Discrimination in the enforcement of laws based on idealogical grounds is the worst sort. You are defending this discrimination by refusing to acknowledge it.

 

[master_catholic]

Your refusal to see that equal justice is not given to anti-homosexual protesters does not change the fact that these people are persecuted by law enforcement while pro-homosexual activists are given a walk. Discrimination in the enforcement of laws based on idealogical grounds is the worst sort. You are defending this discrimination by refusing to acknowledge it.

I second that. It is clearly evident that Elric is refusing to give your points any consideration.

The fact that law enfourcement is willing to punish anti-gay protestors much more severely then pro-gay protestors shows their bias. Especially when pro-gay protestors’ crimes are much more serious than anti-gay protestors’ crimes.

There have been other people who have argued like “both/all sides are bad, there is no difference, or there is no better behaved side.” Such people refuse to see the truth when it comes to some groups of people being more violent or law-breaking then the other side."

People who continue to argue like in the above paragraph just simply loose their credibility to those who are more governed by logic.

 

[Elric]

Your refusal to see that equal justice is not given to anti-homosexual protesters does not change the fact that these people are persecuted by law enforcement while pro-homosexual activists are given a walk. Discrimination in the enforcement of laws based on idealogical grounds is the worst sort. You are defending this discrimination by refusing to acknowledge it.

If you say so.

What concerns me is that you seem to believe that the “anti-gay” protestors in the examples were acting like christians.

This topic is about free speech and if “Hate crimes” codes impedes peoples rights to exercise free speech, whether the examples show any form of discrimination is a topic for another thread.

I second that. It is clearly evident that Elric is refusing to give your points any consideration.

The fact that law enfourcement is willing to punish anti-gay protestors much more severely then pro-gay protestors shows their bias. Especially when pro-gay protestors’ crimes are much more serious than anti-gay protestors’ crimes.

There have been other people who have argued like “both/all sides are bad, there is no difference, or there is no better behaved side.” Such people refuse to see the truth when it comes to some groups of people being more violent or law-breaking then the other side."

People who continue to argue like in the above paragraph just simply loose their credibility to those who are more governed by logic.

There is no better side, they were all doing the wrong thing.

Although if you want to get technicilal, the “christians” would be more wrong because they claim to take the “moral high ground”. Their actions of being decietful, intollerance, disrespecting people and laws go against their own beliefs that they claim to have.

The reports on the anti-gay people are quite vague about exactly what the anti-gay protestors did and try to put them in a positive light, so it is quite difficult to see if their actions were actually “hate crimes” or not.

If you want to sit there and try and justify what the anti-gay people did by saying “but the pro-gay people did this and theirs was much worse” then you are showing your own form of biggitory or discrimination.

The truth of the matter is that neither group should have done what they did and neither were exercising “free speech”.

 

[rpp]

This topic is about free speech and if “Hate crimes” codes impedes peoples rights to exercise free speech, whether the examples show any form of discrimination is a topic for another thread.

That is one of the worst dodges I have seen.

This poster has just graduated to Zero Credibility.

 

[rpp]

If you say so.

What concerns me is that you seem to believe that the “anti-gay” protestors in the examples were acting like christians.

This topic is about free speech and if “Hate crimes” codes impedes peoples rights to exercise free speech, whether the examples show any form of discrimination is a topic for another thread.

This has to be the lamest dodges I have seen for quite a while. just double-talk.

There is no better side, they were all doing the wrong thing.

Although if you want to get technicilal, the “christians” would be more wrong because they claim to take the “moral high ground”. Their actions of being decietful, intollerance, disrespecting people and laws go against their own beliefs that they claim to have.

The reports on the anti-gay people are quite vague about exactly what the anti-gay protestors did and try to put them in a positive light, so it is quite difficult to see if their actions were actually “hate crimes” or not.

If you want to sit there and try and justify what the anti-gay people did by saying “but the pro-gay people did this and theirs was much worse” then you are showing your own form of biggitory or discrimination.

The truth of the matter is that neither group should have done what they did and neither were exercising “free speech”.

This is one of the most disingenuous posts I have seen. This poster
has now move to that fairly exclusive group of those with Zero Credibility.

 

[Elric]

This has to be the lamest dodges I have seen for quite a while. just double-talk.

What exactly am I trying to dodge?

This is one of the most disingenuous posts I have seen. This poster
has now move to that fairly exclusive group of those with Zero Credibility.

Which part is disingenuous?

The part where I say both groups were wrong and were not exercising “free speech”?

The part where I say the “christians” involved went against their own beliefs and were technically “more wrong” because of it?

Comment that there was little reported about the “christians” actions?

Where does the “zero credibility” part actually come into it?

At least I am staying on topic.

 

[goofyjim]

I would report a crime if anyone was badgering me for any reason whether it be to preach their christianity when I don’t want to hear it or anything else. I have every right to tell someone I am not interested and have them get out of my life.

 

[master_catholic]

There is no better side, they were all doing the wrong thing.

Although if you want to get technicilal, the “christians” would be more wrong because they claim to take the “moral high ground”. Their actions of being decietful, intollerance, disrespecting people and laws go against their own beliefs that they claim to have.

The reports on the anti-gay people are quite vague about exactly what the anti-gay protestors did and try to put them in a positive light, so it is quite difficult to see if their actions were actually “hate crimes” or not.

If you want to sit there and try and justify what the anti-gay people did by saying “but the pro-gay people did this and theirs was much worse” then you are showing your own form of biggitory or discrimination.

The truth of the matter is that neither group should have done what they did and neither were exercising “free speech”.

Even if Christians mess up, it only goes against THEIR PERSON. TRUTH ITSELF IS ALWAYS CREDIBLE AND TRUE REGARDLESS OF THE ACTIONS OF THE BELIEVER those who disobey do not get a free pass for being christian, and will have to answer to God for disobeying any ******JUST LAW THAT COINSIDES WITH GOD’S LAW. I do not support their unjust law breaking (if it was unjust)

Vague coverage of Anti-gay violence/violations is PROOF of bias, cause while they are eagar to cover the story, knowing that people could be impressioned to think that anti-gay protestors do this often, THEY DON’T COVER PRO-GAY VIOLENCE/VIOLATIONS CAUSE THEY WANT PEOPLE TO THINK THAT PRO-GAY PROTESTERS ARE PEACEFUL.

The reason why it is VAGUE is 'cause the facts, if they were mentioned in full, would make the readers logically conclude, that the people who supposedly committed “hate crimes” are actually INNOCENT. So they make it “vague”…THEY HIDE FACTS.

I doubt they would put any “positive light” on them. The liberal media HAS AN AGENDA: MAKE SOME PEOPLE LOOK GOOD, OTHERS BAD, AT THE EXPENSE OF FACTS AND HONESTY.

I do not justify either side by saying one did more wrong than the other, IT’S A MATER OF FACT, NOT “BIGGITORY OR DISCRIMINATION” THAT PRO-GAY PROTESTERS DID WORSER THINGS AND GOT AWAY WITH IT MORE, WHILE ANTI-GAY PROTESTERS EXPIRIENCED THE OPPOSITE.

Sure, BOTH MAY HAVE DONE WRONG, BUT ONE GETS AWAY WITH IT MORE BY DESIGN

 

[Elric]

Even if Christians mess up, it only goes against THEIR PERSON. TRUTH ITSELF IS ALWAYS CREDIBLE AND TRUE REGARDLESS OF THE ACTIONS OF THE BELIEVER those who disobey do not get a free pass for being christian, and will have to answer to God for disobeying any ******JUST LAW THAT COINSIDES WITH GOD’S LAW. I do not support their unjust law breaking (if it was unjust)

Vague coverage of Anti-gay violence/violations is PROOF of bias, cause while they are eagar to cover the story, knowing that people could be impressioned to think that anti-gay protestors do this often, THEY DON’T COVER PRO-GAY VIOLENCE/VIOLATIONS CAUSE THEY WANT PEOPLE TO THINK THAT PRO-GAY PROTESTERS ARE PEACEFUL.

The reason why it is VAGUE is 'cause the facts, if they were mentioned in full, would make the readers logically conclude, that the people who supposedly committed “hate crimes” are actually INNOCENT. So they make it “vague”…THEY HIDE FACTS.

I doubt they would put any “positive light” on them. The liberal media HAS AN AGENDA: MAKE SOME PEOPLE LOOK GOOD, OTHERS BAD, AT THE EXPENSE OF FACTS AND HONESTY.

I do not justify either side by saying one did more wrong than the other, IT’S A MATER OF FACT, NOT “BIGGITORY OR DISCRIMINATION” THAT PRO-GAY PROTESTERS DID WORSER THINGS AND GOT AWAY WITH IT MORE, WHILE ANTI-GAY PROTESTERS EXPIRIENCED THE OPPOSITE.

Sure, BOTH MAY HAVE DONE WRONG, BUT ONE GETS AWAY WITH IT MORE BY DESIGN

I understand that you have a point to express, but I cant really follow what it is. It might be an idea to take a couple of minuites to calm down and think about what you want to express rather than posting "in the heat of the moment"as it were.

It was never my intention to try and justify the treatment of one group or another, they were all wrong in what they did and all should be ashamed of themselves for their actions. The question asked was if any of them were expressing freedom of speech and if that right was being supressed, none of the examples showed anyone exercising freedom of speech and they were certainly not having their right to free speech supressed.

 

[master_catholic]

I understand that you have a point to express, but I cant really follow what it is. It might be an idea to take a couple of minuites to calm down and think about what you want to express rather than posting "in the heat of the moment"as it were.

Oh don’t worry I wasn’t upset or “in the heat of the moment” when I posted that, I just do that so when I feel like applying extreme emphasis so that it isn’t missed

It was never my intention to try and justify the treatment of one group or another, they were all wrong in what they did and all should be ashamed of themselves for their actions.

But you at least sounded like you were avoiding facts by making both sides equally bad, as if they do equal amount of wrong, or that they are treated in exactly the same manner. You were acting like you were ignoring that fact or that you were afraid of giving the impression that “because they do it less, it is less bad,” which you wouldn’t have given because we all know that not to be true.

The question asked was if any of them were expressing freedom of speech and if that right was being supressednone of the examples showed anyone exercising freedom of speech and they were certainly not having their right to free speech supressed.

I’d debate that. It is very likely, in fact, in some of the cases at the least, that the anti-gay protesters where engaging in a perfectly legitimate excercise of there freedom of speech. But they were still charged with “hate crimes” 'cause they expressed a politically incorrect viewpoint.

Sure some probably/must’ve gone over the line, but keep in mind that liberals are not afraid to use oppresive force when given the opportunity.

 

[goofyjim]

Oh don’t worry I wasn’t upset or “in the heat of the moment” when I posted that, I just do that so when I feel like applying extreme emphasis so that it isn’t missed

But you at least sounded like you were avoiding facts by making both sides equally bad, as if they do equal amount of wrong, or that they are treated in exactly the same manner. You were acting like you were ignoring that fact or that you were afraid of giving the impression that “because they do it less, it is less bad,” which you wouldn’t have given because we all know that not to be true.

I’d debate that. It is very likely, in fact, in some of the cases at the least, that the anti-gay protesters where engaging in a perfectly legitimate excercise of there freedom of speech. But they were still charged with “hate crimes” 'cause they expressed a politically incorrect viewpoint.

Sure some probably/must’ve gone over the line, but keep in mind that liberals are not afraid to use oppresive force when given the opportunity.

I resist all oppressive force from both the liberals and the conservatives. If someone approaches me even on a christian basis, I will politely tell them to leave me alone or I will call the police. I expect them to abide by my requests or face the consequences.

 

[Elric]

But you at least sounded like you were avoiding facts by making both sides equally bad, as if they do equal amount of wrong, or that they are treated in exactly the same manner. You were acting like you were ignoring that fact or that you were afraid of giving the impression that “because they do it less, it is less bad,” which you wouldn’t have given because we all know that not to be true.

Im sorry, but I didnt “sound” like that at all. The only thing that I mentioned about any of their treatment was to say that most of the anti-gay actions didnt seem to be “hate crimes”.

I’d debate that. It is very likely, in fact, in some of the cases at the least, that the anti-gay protesters where engaging in a perfectly legitimate excercise of there freedom of speech.

Oh really, which one?

But they were still charged with “hate crimes” 'cause they expressed a politically incorrect viewpoint.

Sure some probably/must’ve gone over the line, but keep in mind that liberals are not afraid to use oppresive force when given the opportunity.

Political correctness had nothing to do with it, they were ALL doing the wrong thing.

Your strawman arguments of political correctness and liberals wont change that.

Oh yeah, it was the conservative media that reported on the anti-gay examples and tried to put them in a positive light.

 

[master_catholic]

Im sorry, but I didnt “sound” like that at all. The only thing that I mentioned about any of their treatment was to say that most of the anti-gay actions didnt seem to be “hate crimes”.

You most certainly did, Elric. You implied it.

Oh really, which one?

citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000005315.cfm
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56461
wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54125

These three ESPECIALLY. Not much need be said, the police blew things out of proportion, and clearly violated their civil-rights. The city ordiences where clearly used to censor anti-gay speech.

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56433

This article shows the fear the city aquired, after the “nearly-incited riot” incident. What they need is more police coverage, not “free speech zones”

lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07071001.html

Wile I’d say that what the christian ministers’ activity was imprudent, it was still legal, and morally legitimate, SINCE IT IS A PUBLIC PARK. I’m especially disturbed that a cop would actually say “you can’t share your religion with anyone in the park”!

…COMMUNIST AMERICA, ANYONE!!!

nwherald.com/articles/2007/05/17/news/local/doc464c19ae6c3e8295611781.txt

Now, this is when I’d NOT side with the defendent. While the police where a little touchy with the girls, they (the girls) just simply calling names is not very constructive and it was speach meant ONLY to insult, and not create dialogue/discussion.

Political correctness had nothing to do with it, they were ALL doing the wrong thing.

Political correctness has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT, Elric!

Your strawman arguments of political correctness and liberals wont change that.

They already have

Oh yeah, it was the conservative media that reported on the anti-gay examples and tried to put them in a positive light.

Because ONLY the conservative would cover them, save for one, and like my earlier posts, the liberal media censor these stories to engineer the public into thinking certain ways about certain issues.

And what “positive light” are you refering to, by the way? The storys don’t look to happy to me. And what reports where you refering to earlier, the ones cited in this thread, or reports in generally? It’s a question I should’ve asked earlier.

 

[master_catholic]

Now let’s review an earlier post you made to show some comparision:

Thanks for those links, it would have been nice if other media reported on these situations. But it did confirm what I thought.

Let me just state (again) that I respect the Cathloic belief that homosexuality is a sin and that I do not agree with people who deliberately flaunt homosexuality on cathloics or force their opposed opinion on them. As I have said, you wouldnt go to a Jewish function with a leg of ham or a muslim function with a six pack.

But these people in question were trouble makers who seemed to think that they were above other people and were not showing respect for other people.

The guy at the gas station: Its pretty clear that the person he was “sharing his testimony” with wasnt interested in the “sharing” going on. Instead of respecting the person, he continued to share (how many times was he asked to stop?) until it got to the point where the police were called.

The St Petersburg rally: They were asked to keep their protest in specified areas, a major reason being because of what happened the year before, they chose to ignore this as well as requests by police to remain in their areas. They chose not to respect the cities wishes or the polices wishes.

The park festival: These people were asked/told beforehand not to go to the park and do what they intended to do and they were trying to disrupt the festival (laying down in front of the stage). If they wanted to pray for these people, they could have done that anywhere else. They chose not to respect the police or the attendants of the festival.

The girls with the flyers: The content of the flyers really speaks for itself.

The grandmothers: Exactly what were they “sharing”?

There isnt much information on this one, but they must have been doing something to be arrested. I am suprised that the link provided didnt go into more detail about what they were sharing.

These examples didnt breech anybodies right to free speech, but they do show a lack of respect for other people.

Regardless of “respect” “feeling” or any other excuse, they still had the right to do what they did (while I do hold some reservation for a few of the cases). These examples are of PUBLIC AREAS where supposedly everyone HAS 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. This isn’t a private party, or something held on private property, IT’S PUBLIC.

I think you and I may actually have much in common, we just have to be more clear in our discussions.

Thanks for your imput Elric

 

[master_catholic]

I resist all oppressive force from both the liberals and the conservatives. If someone approaches me even on a christian basis, I will politely tell them to leave me alone or I will call the police. I expect them to abide by my requests or face the consequences.

1. I was talking about policemen/judges/etc. who with a liberal mindset illicitely used their power to silence free speech. That is wrong. I wasn’t refering to protesters when I was talking about “oppressive force.”
2. You have the right to ignore, to not listen. You have the right to leave. You do have the right to tell someone to leave if they are on PRIVATE property, but not if it’s PUBLIC.

If they are bothering you on PUBLIC property, you can just leave, or not listen, but you can’t just censor their message and threaten to call the pollice. They still have first amendment rights, or should.

I hope christians will have the commen-sense approach and leave people alone when they are not in the mood to talk, but I can sympathise with you if the christian is outright rude and unrelenting.

 

[Elric]

You most certainly did, Elric. You implied it.

No I didnt. I remained impartial and condemned all parties for what they did.

citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000005315.cfm
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56461
wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54125

These three ESPECIALLY. Not much need be said, the police blew things out of proportion, and clearly violated their civil-rights. The city ordiences where clearly used to censor anti-gay speech.

So the first guy had his civil-rights violated because he chose to harrass a person to the point that police had to interviene?

Please.

The second lot chose to ignore the law and think themselves above everyone else and the law, even after being allowed to practice free speech, were not doing anything wrong.

The third group, they wont even say what they were exactly “sharing”. Aside from raising questions about the “World Net Daily” integritity, it doesnt help their cause at all. You dont get arrested for simply “sharing your faith”, so what part of their faith were they sharing and which part of the “gospel” were they spreading?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56433

This article shows the fear the city aquired, after the “nearly-incited riot” incident. What they need is more police coverage, not “free speech zones”

The city chose to handle the situation the way that they did. From what I can tell, it was mainly to protect the anti-gay protesters and still allow them to have free speech. Why should they risk injury to police and others when there was another way to allow both parties what they wanted.

What was really needed was for those people not to act like they were above the law.

lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07071001.html

Wile I’d say that what the christian ministers’ activity was imprudent, it was still legal, and morally legitimate, SINCE IT IS A PUBLIC PARK. I’m especially disturbed that a cop would actually say “you can’t share your religion with anyone in the park”!

…COMMUNIST AMERICA, ANYONE!!!

No it wasnt legal, they were already told not to do it before they even arrived there. They were there to cause a disturbance plain and simple, what really disturbs me is that the minister chose to lie about the groups intentions and come up with that “praying for them” line.

I can understand why the police officer said what he did (that is if he actually said those words). The park was holding a homosexual festival, I doubt very much if any of the people in the park would be really interested in what the group had to say. Besides that I think that the homosexuals attending already have a fair idea what “christianity” thinks of them.

nwherald.com/articles/2007/05/17/news/local/doc464c19ae6c3e8295611781.txt

Now, this is when I’d NOT side with the defendent. While the police where a little touchy with the girls, they (the girls) just simply calling names is not very constructive and it was speach meant ONLY to insult, and not create dialogue/discussion.

I would question that due to the fact that they were all friends until apparently the boy “came out”. Although I am more inclined to think its more “youthful ignorance”.

Political correctness has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT, Elric!

No, these people did the wrong thing.

Because ONLY the conservative would cover them, save for one, and like my earlier posts, the liberal media censor these stories to engineer the public into thinking certain ways about certain issues.

And what “positive light” are you refering to, by the way? The storys don’t look to happy to me. And what reports where you refering to earlier, the ones cited in this thread, or reports in generally? It’s a question I should’ve asked earlier.

I was refering to the stories cited in this thread, that way its easier for people to follow up.

The “positive light” part would be refering to how the sites try to make the perpertraitors look like the victims. The poor ex-gay man was only “sharing his testimony”, the old ladies (lists grand children) were only “sharing their faith” and “spreading the gospel”.

Im not talking about the difference between liberal/consertive media, I dont buy into that. I was refering to the stories cited and how they were reported.