29 responses

  1. MirrorMan
    October 23, 2009

    Wasn’t there something in the bible about “bearing false witness”? Just checking…

  2. TomTallis
    October 23, 2009

    If ONLY something would silence them!

  3. Henry
    October 23, 2009

    Tony Perkins, you can’t surely expect the president to veto this bill when you accused the same president of presiding over a “radical homosexual” agenda

  4. Burr
    October 23, 2009

    Give up your protections from religious hate crime and I’ll take your position seriously, though your way of supporting it is still lying, hateful BS.

  5. Christopher Waldrop
    October 23, 2009

    The fact that the Family Research Council and similar groups can continue spewing the same bile as always is proof that this bill does not infringe “on the free speech rights of the American people.”

  6. Regan DuCasse
    October 23, 2009

    Remember that vile minister in Tempe, AZ…Steven Anderson?

    Didn’t any of these stupid people check up to find out if he’d gotten arrested, harassed or in any other way put on notice that his expression would make him subject to arrest, let alone silence?

    What about Ken Hutcherson? Watchmen on the Walls, the Phelps family or massresistance?

    How many of these people, in spite of being on videos gone viral on the net, have been arrested, censored or restricted in ANY way from doing what they’ve been doing for years?

    Which, as you all know, is almost exclusively saying something specifically nasty, inflammatory and defamatory against gay people.

    How is it these people haven’t restrained themselves no matter what kinds of protective laws are on the books and absolutely NONE of their conjectures, theories or lame predictions has come close to reality?

    Doesn’t the reality, in fact reveal that they are wrong, if not outright liars?

    Anyone who even can sit there and believe them have to be the stupidest people on the planet.
    This, as they are also the ones demanding that THEY should be voting on whether or not gay people deserve equality!

    Lord help…

  7. KZ
    October 23, 2009

    If Tony Perkins of the Family “Research” Council would actually RESEARCH this bill, he could put his concerns to rest. I won’t hold my breath. The FRC researches as much as LaBarbera posts truths on his Americans for “Truth” about Homosexuality website.

    I want Andrea Lafferty to repeat her comment to the families of Matthew Shepard, Lawrence King, Jack Price, August Provost, and Sean Kennedy. This woman is just FULL of Christian love. So full it makes me want to puke.

  8. Richard W. Fitch
    October 24, 2009

    This really deserves an article all it’s own, but I’m placing it here since it is not that far off topic. On Oct 15 in his newsletter “A New Christianity for a New World”, Bishop Spong published: “A Manifesto! The Time Has Come!”
    Find the text here. Bishop Spong is for me one of the great spiritual heroes of our time.

  9. ben
    November 18, 2009

    No, they don’t arrest you. They just fire you from your job.

    Homosexuals are the leading threat to liberty in this country today.

  10. ben
    November 18, 2009

    Also, placing the so-called “hate crimes” so-called “prevention act” into the defense appropriations bill was cheating, plain and simple. Furthermore, the entire concept of federalzing a crime that is in essence the jurisdiction of the state is unconstitutional.

  11. ben
    November 18, 2009

    Check out where it says that prosecution will not rest “solely” on expression of belief. In other words, when a crime happens, the crime will be punished AND the thought behind it. It’s criminalization of thought.

  12. Alex
    November 18, 2009

    Ben, you are what’s called a so-called “troll.”

  13. Priya Lynn
    November 18, 2009

    Ben said “when a crime happens, the crime will be punished AND the thought behind it. It’s criminalization of thought.”.

    No, it’s not. When a hate crime is committed there are two crimes, the immediate assault/murder on the individual, and the terrorizing of the community that that individual belongs to. The hate crimes enhancement punishes the second crime. In a sense the immediate victim of a hate crime is merely a symbol for the perpetrator, their real goal is to attack the entire community that that individual belongs to. Hate crimes laws discourage these crimes by punishing that attack.

  14. Priya Lynn
    November 18, 2009

    Ben said “Gays are the leading threat to liberty in this country today.”.

    If your idea of liberty is the freedom to assault and murder gays, the freedom to fire them from their jobs and evict them from their homes merely for being gay, the freedom to deny them the rights everyone else has, that is a “freedom” that is deservedly threatened with extinction.

    Your freedom to swing your fist ends when it meets my nose. You think you should have the freedom to abuse and impinge upon gays to whatever extent it pleases you, that’s a freedom no just society will ever support.

  15. Ben
    November 18, 2009

    No one is arguing that anyone has a right to assault or murder anyone–homosexuals included! Assault and murder are already illegal in every state in the whole country, you twits!

    Arguing with people like you is aggravating. Logic and facts do not phase you.

    It’s nice to know that you think it’s wrong to fire someone from their job because of their “sexual orientation”. Do you also think it’s wrong to fire someone from their job because of sincerely held religious beliefs? It happens all the time when those religious beliefs are defined as “homophobia”. Just ask Peter Vadala. he was fired from Brookstone because he mentioned that he objected to same-sex “marriage”.

  16. Alex
    November 18, 2009

    Ben,

    “Logic and facts do not phase you.”

    Such as the fact that the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act clearly says your First Amendment right to verbally bash gay people will not be restricted in any way unless your goal is to incite violence? Or how about the fact that a group of anti-gay Christians held a protest sermon against homosexuality in Washington the other day and NOT ONE was arrested?

    By the way… Peter Vadala, the anti-gay movement’s Martyr of the Week, was fired from Brookstone because he violated the company’s non-discrimination policy (not that they actually needed a reason to fire someone who was still on a post-hire probationary period).

  17. Priya Lynn
    November 18, 2009

    Ben said “No one is arguing that anyone has a right to assault or murder anyone–gays included!”.

    If you’re not arguing that then it is quite simply a lie for you to say that gays are a threat to liberty.

    Ben said “Do you also think it’s wrong to fire someone from their job because of sincerely held religious beliefs?”.

    You say “sincerely” like that excuses bigotry, it doesn’t. However, yes its wrong to fire someone because of “sincerely” held beliefs like blacks or gays are inferior.

    Ben said “It happens all the time when those religious beliefs are defined as “homophobia”.

    Wrong. No one has EVER been fired merely for their beliefs.

    Ben said ” Just ask Peter Vadala. he was fired from Brookstone because he mentioned that he objected to same-sex “marriage”.”.

    He was fired for insulting an employee, not because of his bigoted beliefs. You’re welcome to believe whatever you want in the workplace, but when you make it your business to tell another employer that their harmless actions and the love of their life are “bad stuff” you can and should expect repercussions for creating a hostile work environment. Its no different than an employee expressing to a black co-worker his “sincere” belief that black people are inferior and have no souls (as churchs used to teach). Such a person would be rightfully fired, not because of what he believes, but for creating a hostile work environment by insulting those who’ve done no wrong.

  18. Jason D
    November 18, 2009

    Just ask Peter Vadala. he was fired from Brookstone because he mentioned that he objected to same-sex “marriage”.

    That is a blatant lie. He was fired for insulting his coworker and being unprofessional. the coworker had merely stated a fact, that her fiance is female. Vadala decided that he just couldn’t let that fact go without comment, so he was rude and insulting to her.

    That’s why he got fired. His opinion was irrelevant, it’s how he chose to express it that got him fired.

  19. Ben
    November 18, 2009

    Yes, Peter was fired for his sincerely held religious belief. Those non-discrimination clauses that you hold so dear don’t apply only to homosexuals. They apply to people of faith as well. Or at least they would in a world without the kind of anti-religious bigotry prevalent on this website.

    Thank you do confirming exactly what I just said in the previous post. Homosexuals will get you fired from your job for sincerely held beliefs. They will just call it a “hostile work environment”. The point is that tyhe homosexual lobby cannot tolerate any disagreement. No matter how timid we are in mentioning our belief in public, we will always be portrayed as the aggressor.

    You know, there was time when mentioning support for the LGBTQXYZ community could get you fired from a lot of positions, both public and private. You’ve become the grotesque mirror image of what you hate.

    And not one of you can show me a single jurisdiction in which assaulting/murdering anyone–that includes sodomites, curcus clowns, garbagemen, Baptists, Rastafarians–is legal. Ergo, there is no need for the law and the extra punishment accorded for “hate” is tantamount to a criminilization of thought.

  20. Emily K
    November 18, 2009

    Boy does Ben protest a lot. Methinks a bit TOO much…

  21. Alex
    November 18, 2009

    Ben, if you dislike hate crimes legislation so much, then by all means, write to your congressman and say that you want Christians removed from the list of protected classes.

    Also, get a grammar handbook because your spelling is atrocious.

  22. Ben
    November 18, 2009

    Interesting how you assumed I’m a Christian. Maybe I’m a Jew. Maybe I’m a secular humanist. Maybe I’m just a civil libertarian who wants to protect the constitution from its enemies, foreign and dmoestic. (That’s you–a domestic enemy). I never mentioned any religious affiliation.

  23. Jason D
    November 18, 2009

    “Yes, Peter was fired for his sincerely held religious belief.”

    Asserting something does not make it true.

    He harassed another employee, as a management level employee he should’ve known, and done better. There is a line between simply stating an opinion and harassment, he crossed it — in flagrant violation of their company policies.

    He did not go to the police.

    He did not go to the board of labor.

    He didn’t go to any sort of legal department.

    Nope, he went to well-known, dyed-in-the -wool, lound-n-proud anti-gay activists.

  24. Richard W. Fitch
    November 18, 2009

    No, Ben, there was no explicit assumption that you are a ‘Christian’; simply that, since religion is a mutable attribute, why should it be protected like race??

  25. Alex
    November 18, 2009

    I thought it was a safe assumption, Ben. From my experience, only an anti-gay Christian would whine about hate crimes legislation with the level of ignorance you’ve displayed, or refer to gay people as sodomites, or condescendingly put quotes around words like same-sex “marriage,” “sexual orientation,” and “homophobia,” or cite the case of Peter Vadala to pass him off as yet another poor, innocent victim of The Evil Gay Agenda. Given your comments so far, I would be very surprised to learn that you have no affiliation whatsoever with Christianity.

    And what’s this about me being a domestic enemy? Do you mean that I in particular am a domestic enemy? Please explain.

  26. Désirée
    November 19, 2009

    criminalizing thought? huh? Hate crime laws do not criminalize thought any more than distinctions between 1st and 2nd degree murder do. In both cases, the victim is equally as dead, but the charges are different based on the *intent* (i.e. the thought) of the murderer. When the *intent* is to terrorize a class/group of people, then yes, the punishment does need to be greater.

  27. Timothy Kincaid
    November 19, 2009

    Ben,

    The difference between bigotry and a principled position is that a principle applies to all.

    If your objection to hate crimes legislation was the principled objection that it applies unequal punishment based on attitudes, beliefs, or thoughts, then that objection would apply to all hate crimes, be they based on religion, race or other attributes. Such arguments have merit and, indeed, I too have concerns along that line.

    But if, however, your objection is only to the inclusion of “sodomites” under hate crimes protections, then your arguments about the criminalization of thought is only a smoke screen and your real objection is to treating hate crimes against gay people on the same level as other hate crimes. Such an argument is that anti-gay violent crime should be considered less of a crime than anti-Christian or anti-black violent crime.

    That is an argument for treating one class of people unequally based solely on animus towards that class of people. That is the heart of bigotry.

    From what I can tell, you object only to protections for gay people. Thus you reveal your position to not be principled, but rather bigoted.

  28. Priya Lynn
    November 19, 2009

    Ben claims his “freedoms” are threatened if he doesn’t have the right to create a hostile work environment by insulting gay co-workers.

    Ben, that’s a pretty pathetic complaint if that’s the only “freedom” of yours that’s threatened. Gay people similarly don’t have the “freedom” to create a hostile work enviornment by insulting religious people – its a standard we all have to live by in a just world.

    Tell us Ben, if you deprive youself of the “freedom” to tell a newlywed lesbian that the happiest day of her life is “bad stuff”, just exactly how does that impact you in a negative way?
    How does that change your day to day life? Does it break your leg? Does it pick your pocket? Does it mean you can’t pray whenever you feel like it? Does it mean your children can’t go to the private school of your choice?

    NO. If you deprive yourself of the “right” to insult gay people it has no conceivable impact on your freedom to do anything to pursue happiness as you see fit, unless your happiness is dependent on insulting and oppressing others who do you know harm. If that’s the case you are in desperate need of psychiatric help.

  29. Wolf Lair
    March 11, 2010

    I wonder how often gays commit violent crimes against straights. Christians love to be bigots that’s all it is. The world would be a better place without religion. Grow up now.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop