Posts
I was recently involved in a discussion with a young man who pointed out inaccuracies in my manifesto. When I told him that a pastor had been fined for disagreeing with homosexuality in another country, the young man said that my example was irrelevant since Americans are protected by the first amendment of the Constitution.
I believe that the glbt community wants to silence Christians and conservatives with "hate speech" laws. And, whenever I ask a anti-Christian/anti-hetero person to define hate speech, I never get a clear answer. And when I offer my definition that hate speech is...speech that condones or promotes violence against a definable group of people without due cause...my definition doesn't seem to be acceptable to them.
I believe that "hate speech" laws that are specifically designed to silence Christians, conservatives, and anyone who doesn't accept the glbt lifestyle as normal, are coming to the United States of America. My supporting info is here.
The above is a mischaracterization of our discussion. I was very clear that I agreed with the definition stated in Massachusetts' proposed law that hate speech is “publishing any false material…with intent to maliciously promote hatred” as I explained in the comments section of your previous post. What is unclear about this?
ReplyDeleteAgain, if Fred Phelps is protected, I think you and your blog are safe.
Didn't you tell me that what happened to Shawn Holes, the pastor that was fined $1,500 for speaking out against homosexuality, was irrelevant because he was in another country?
ReplyDeleteI think it was clear in my post yesterday that I was taking issuing which your assertion that I gave you an unclear answer regarding the definition of hate speech, not anything regarding the pastor.
ReplyDelete