Will Catholic beliefs be deemed "hate speech"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZemD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you have something that actually lists tos violations with Visa?

Help I’m being oppressed blog posts do nothing but stir emotions. When we sign up for anything from a merchant account to this forum we agree to follow their rules. When those rules are breached, there are consequences.

What was the specific violation?

Free speech does not make one immune to the consequences of that speech

Hatred is not part of our doctrine, so, I do not understand the equivalency
 
You can choose willful ignorance of the kind of “free speech” gab is a haven for. That doesn’t change the truth of it.

And of course the comments are not by the site runner…it’s a social network. It’s the sum of its users.

They’re free to exercise their rights by allowing the drivel…they however, are not free from consequences.
 
ZemD said:
do you think it is appropriate for Visa to threaten to ban other payment vendors who wish to do business with Gab?
Click to expand...
Depends. Visa alleges Gab is involved in illegal activity. Are they? If they are not then this could be a defamation issue. If they are then it may be prudent. Afraid I dont have enough info to give you a straight answer. The actual allegations are important. But the associations don’t help.

Ex: gab was the preferred social network of the Christchurch shooter. Between thos and other associations it isn’t hard to get public consent to wall them off.
 
Last edited:
Jen95 said:
I don’t know the first thing about gab. Are Muslim businesses / organizations considered to be anti-semitic?
Click to expand...
Whether or not a business is or is not might in part depend on the content it puts out. For Gab the issue was such content being hosted and Gab taking a position of defending it. That content is enough for some people to distance themselves. People includes businesses.

There is another social media network that promised no censoring (Parler). They have rencently started censoring (as is their right). Sometimes that is necessary to stay profitable. I tried to start a thread on it early thisbAM, but the automated CAF filters prevented it (which is perfectly acceptable).

Oh, btw, it is alleged that Parler is more inclined to suspend liberal leaning users (which, if true, is also their right).
 
If you Google almost any person by name, the website MyLife will pop up, providing you with that person’s "Reputation Score."

This sounds rather like the Chinese Communist "Reliability Score," doesn’t it?

MyLife generates these scores by crawling through multiple sources of public data on the internet, including internet sites visited, social media sites, and running the raw data through an algorithm (an analytic sieve MyLife has designed) to generate a final “Reputation Score” on the individual.

First of all, these scores may have little or no true bearing on a person’s character. Nobody interviews the person being scored. The data collected may or may not be accurate. The algorithm used by MyLife may be defective.

Fortunately, you can contact MyLife to “opt out” and demand that they remove the “reputation score” they have generated on you, and that they quit collecting personal data about you. I did this simply to protect my privacy, and it required about 30 minutes on the phone with MyLife.
 
GodIsPerfection said:
If you Google almost any person by name, the website MyLife will pop up, providing you with that person’s "Reputation Score."

This sounds rather like the Chinese Communist "Reliability Score," doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
Nope. When it becomes an integral part of your rights and liberties then it might sound similar. Btw: that result might be an advertisement.
 
Catholic teachings is already deemed as hate speech in Canada and has been banned from public view by the government on buses and other places.

Here, it’s coming and many of the colleges and universities treat Catholic and all Christian speech for that matter, as hate speech and have banned it.
 
Last edited:
Ads on buses and other areas which have Scripture verses addressing homosexual acts as sinful and others that make people feel uncomfortable.

Of course, there is the Bill C-16, which isn’t Catholic teaching per se, but it was an assault on free speech, mandating that pronouns that a person of gender identity requires that teachers and others use. Zher and Zhe, became the new pronouns for transgender individuals.
 
There may be racist people on there, I don’t disagree with that, but the website’s motive is to allow free speech. If you do that your always going to get the good and the bad. But that is what free speech is about.
jtauke said:
They’re free to exercise their rights by allowing the drivel…they however, are not free from consequences.
Click to expand...
consequences of what? if your talking about morality, I totally agree, but I still think they should be free to do what they will, it doesn’t make it right.
 
ZemD said:
But I was intrigued that they were banned by a major mainstream financial company because they viewed their business as supporting hate speech.
Click to expand...
PayPal has a few disassociation under their belt. As does Bank of America.
ColoradoCatholic said:
consequences of what? if your talking about morality, I totally agree, but I still think they should be free to do what they will, it doesn’t make it right.
Click to expand...
Speech is subject to the reaction(s) of ones community(s). I dont think there is any way to escape those consequences.
 
Last edited:
ZemD said:
In my state catholic charities had to stop doing adoptions and foster care because they would not place children with same sex couples.
Click to expand...
That’s not quite the story. The organization accepted government funds to place children in homes. Because the government has non discriminatory policies, Catholic adoption agencies had to either separate from accepting government money or be non discriminatory. They closed because they weren’t financially able to operate without government money. Had they been able to operate independently of government money, they would have had every right to discriminate on where they placed their children. If you accept government money you have to play by government rules. That’s the law.
 
I think it’s clear the consequence is being dropped by payment processors like PayPal and Visa.
 
I think that is a consequence, but an unjust motive…I think dropping their site because they support free speech is not a very good option unless you are trying to control people and free speech…which would make it censored speech…which isn’t very free at all.
 
That is absolutely not what happened. This had nothing to do with government funding. They were put in the position to obey an immoral law by the local and state government or break the law and likely be sued.

A gay man in a same sex relationship applied with Catholic Charities to adopt a child. When the issue was brought the bishop he ordered the program immediately shut down, as there was no way to process the application as it is against church teaching and to deny the application would be breaking the state law.

Up until a few years ago the organization was never approached by a same-sex couple wishing to adopt. They were thus never in violation of the law.

My state is so mismanaged Catholic Charities funds and runs our “women and infant children’s program” because the state could no longer afford it many year ago. We can still fund abortions though through our medicaid program.
 
ZemD said:
A gay man in a same sex relationship applied with Catholic Charities to adopt a child. When the issue was brought the bishop he ordered the program immediately shut down, as there was no way to process the application as it is against church teaching and to deny the application would be breaking the state law.
Click to expand...
Then that confirms what Patty said. Accept government funds and you have to play by the rules. Which are non discriminatory.

I imagine that if Catholic Charities isolated themsleves from the requirement of State Laws by being entirely self funded then they could choose who gets to adopt.
 
its indirect censorship. If they don’t like what your platform does they make it impossible for you to do business.
 
How would they completely isolate themselves from the state? The children they are working to place in foster care and sometimes eventual adoption are referred to them by the county, after they are removed from their homes by CPS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top