God Hates America: Anti-gay church sued for protesting funerals

[mfblume]

By reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Thank you for your service, BE ... we owe you a great debt of gratitude.

These looneys give a black eye to the Church.

Thank you for that bit of recognition Danny.

[Steve Epley]

This is so disgusting when funeral services are disrupted. The grief is already bad enough. In the part of the country I was raised in they wouldn't have needed the court they would have took care of those folks themselves.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Im a little surprised though. I think if this was a jury case he might have one based on sympathy. Most people think these guys are creeps, but up until now they have been able to do what they have done because it was not illegal.

My question is this: Now that this ruling is entered into the books, what other rulings can be next against all Christians?

I don't agree with that group but this action kinda scares me.
I think there are some free speech principles here.
Like you, I wonder where this will go. Also how it may intrude on protesting outside abortion clinics and even on what type Scriptures may be read publicly in a church or Sunday School.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sam

I don't agree with that group but this action kinda scares me.
I think there are some free speech principles here.
Like you, I wonder where this will go. Also how it may intrude on protesting outside abortion clinics and even on what type Scriptures may be read publicly in a church or Sunday School.

Yes, as disgusting as this group is and what they do we are developing a dangerous precedent in our country: The Right to not be offended.

Gays are trying to get this into law. It's already law in other nations.

In Australia it's a law that if you feel (operative word) your religion was offended, that person can be arrested who offended you

Case in point. A Pentecostal minister was teaching a seminar on Islam. There were Muslims attending. They got offended. They called the authorities. The Pentecostal minister was arrested and stood trial.

In Canada they have a similar law which really affects the ability to preach against Homosexuality. So far it's only been tested in the public where someone advertised in the paper verses against Homosexuality.

But the clear agenda is the left is to make offending someone a hate crime if based on sexual orientation or religion.

That is what this was really about. It's not about a clear violation of law. It's about being offended and emotive.

As I said, that group is sick sick sick....but I believe this will become a dangerous precedent for all Christians in the future and will be used by both homosexuals and Muslims, not to mention Atheists to silence us

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Im a little surprised though. I think if this was a jury case he might have one based on sympathy. Most people think these guys are creeps, but up until now they have been able to do what they have done because it was not illegal.

My question is this: Now that this ruling is entered into the books, what other rulings can be next against all Christians?

This was a civil case and not a criminal case. Civil case precedents don't generally carry that much weight from state to state or even within a state. This was just a jury standing up to "send a message."

I think we need to be more concerned about the "over the top" groups and the impact that they have on our free speech rights. There are a large number of University campuses where conservative speakers cannot go because of the "protests" and the threat of violence by wacko groups.

You can throw dung on a painting of the Virgin and Catholics have to just sit there and shut up about the insult, but you can't make even a respectful representation of the Prophet without death threats. Some people really are "more equal" than others, as Orwell put it.

Until now, this family from Kansas has enjoyed "more equal" status than most people will ever get. And remember, it is just one extended family that's involved in this, not " a church."

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

This was a civil case and not a criminal case. Civil case precedents don't generally carry that much weight from state to state or even within a state. This was just a jury standing up to "send a message."

I think we need to be more concerned about the "over the top" groups and the impact that they have on our free speech rights. There are a large number of University campuses where conservative speakers cannot go because of the "protests" and the threat of violence by wacko groups.

You can throw dung on a painting of the Virgin and Catholics have to just sit there and shut up about the insult, but you can't make even a respectful representation of the Prophet without death threats. Some people really are "more equal" than others, as Orwell put it.

Until now, this family from Kansas has enjoyed "more equal" status than most people will ever get. And remember, it is just one extended family that's involved in this, not " a church."

What was the basis of the civil case?

Thanks for posting this info btw, however though it won't set a precedent for criminal cases, it may still set a trend. Also it may cause law makers to decide we need more laws...that's been the story of our nations life...more laws

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

What was the basis of the civil case?

Thanks for posting this info btw, however though it won't set a precedent for criminal cases, it may still set a trend. Also it may cause law makers to decide we need more laws...that's been the story of our nations life...more laws

The family of the soldier sue for harassment and invasion of privacy. It really was (and is) a dicy position. Unfortunately there is always going to be a lot freedom to be a jerk. Or fortunately, too.

As far as lawmakers, our state passed a law against protesting within a certain distance of a funeral service (I forget how far) after these guys did a couple of their publicity stunts here. I think if the press would just exercise some discretion on this then the incentive for this nutbag wouldn't exist. He just loves faxing his "press releases" to the media and having people show up. Other people will get a dog or even a goldfish to show them the attention this man continually craves.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The family of the soldier sue for harassment and invasion of privacy. It really was (and is) a dicy position. Unfortunately there is always going to be a lot freedom to be a jerk. Or fortunately, too.

As far as lawmakers, our state passed a law against protesting within a certain distance of a funeral service (I forget how far) after these guys did a couple of their publicity stunts here. I think if the press would just exercise some discretion on this then the incentive for this nutbag wouldn't exist. He just loves faxing his "press releases" to the media and having people show up. Other people will get a dog or even a goldfish to show them the attention this man continually craves.

Right...I think the press shows up because he claims to be a Christian.

[Maple Leaf]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes, as disgusting as this group is and what they do we are developing a dangerous precedent in our country: The Right to not be offended.

Gays are trying to get this into law. It's already law in other nations.

In Australia it's a law that if you feel (operative word) your religion was offended, that person can be arrested who offended you

Case in point. A Pentecostal minister was teaching a seminar on Islam. There were Muslims attending. They got offended. They called the authorities. The Pentecostal minister was arrested and stood trial.

In Canada they have a similar law which really affects the ability to preach against Homosexuality. So far it's only been tested in the public where someone advertised in the paper verses against Homosexuality.

But the clear agenda is the left is to make offending someone a hate crime if based on sexual orientation or religion.

That is what this was really about. It's not about a clear violation of law. It's about being offended and emotive.

As I said, that group is sick sick sick....but I believe this will become a dangerous precedent for all Christians in the future and will be used by both homosexuals and Muslims, not to mention Atheists to silence us

Criminal Code of Canada

Section 318: Hate Propaganda

(1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of "genocide"
(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Consent (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definition of "identifiable group"
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

Section 319

(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Canada's hate crime legislation does not infringe upon any church's ability to preach against the sin of homosexuality.