New Canadian immigrant study guide includes references to gay rights
J
that homos and their he/she allies are afforded 'special rights' under
Canadian law. Better there than here.
OTTAWA, Ontario, March 15, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) � Canada�s new immigrant
study guide released Monday now includes references to homosexual �marriage�
after considerable pressure from gay rights activists, including Egale
Canada.
The booklet, called �Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of
Citizenship,� is required reading for immigrants and is meant to be an
introduction to Canadian life before they become citizens. Previous
versions made no mention of homosexual �rights,� although a 2009 revision
included a photo of Olympic gold medallist Mark Tewksbury that identified
him as a homosexual activist.
CTV reports that the new version of the guide states: �Canada�s diversity
includes gay and lesbian Canadians, who enjoy the full protection of and
equal treatment under the law, including access to civil marriage.�
When plans were underway for the revision of the guide last year, Rick
Dykstra, parliamentary secretary for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, said
the guide would have similar wording to the �Welcome to Canada� document.
That document mentions that homosexuals are protected from �unjust
discrimination� and that civil �marriage� is available for homosexuals, but
also states that religious institutions cannot be compelled to perform such
�marriages.� The new guide does not mention religious freedom on the matter
of same-sex �marriage.�
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Erik�
>
> At least the Canadians are honest about one thing; they let immigrants know
> that homos and their he/she allies are afforded 'special rights' under
> Canadian law. Better there than here.
You don't consider Toronto to be part of Canada anymore?
Conan the bacterium
<>
> At least the Canadians are honest about one thing; they let immigrants know
> that homos and their he/she allies are afforded 'special rights'
>
> CTV reports that the new version of the guide states: Canada s diversity
> includes gay and lesbian Canadians, who enjoy the full protection of and
> equal treatment under the law, including access to civil marriage.
>
> When plans were underway for the revision of the guide last year, Rick
> Dykstra, parliamentary secretary for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, said
> the guide would have similar wording to the Welcome to Canada document.
> That document mentions that homosexuals are protected from unjust
> discrimination and that civil marriage is available for homosexuals, but
> also states that religious institutions cannot be compelled to perform such
> marriages. The new guide does not mention religious freedom on the matter
> of same-sex marriage.
>
> --
> J Young
Conan the bacterium
<>
> At least the Canadians are honest about one thing; they let immigrants know
> that homos and their he/she allies are afforded 'special rights'
.
.
.
gay and lesbian Canadians, who enjoy the full protection of and
equal treatment under the law,
Any questions?
conan
M.I. Wakefield
"Conan the bacterium" <deinococcus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5e2c5fab-9dc5-474f...@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
.
.
.
Any questions?
===========
J thinks a 'special right' for gays is *not* being shot at dawn.
The irony is that he's a massive neo-nazi closet case.
W.T.S.
>
> At least the Canadians are honest about one thing; they let immigrants know
> that homos and their he/she allies are afforded 'special rights' under
> Canadian law. Better there than here.
this concerns you, how again?
>
> http://www.liesitelies.com/lies/canada-advances
>
<snip> Usual lie rag disinformation, misquotes, distortions, out of
context quotes, propaganda, bull shit, out and out lies, why repost
nonsense? </snip>
>
Summery: Canada is an advanced nation while the United States struggles
to catch up.
>
Note: Even Canada wasn't always such an advanced nation. Like the
U.S., they had to overcome a lot of very ugly things, not the least of
which was the iron grip of religion, bigotries that had no foundation in
reality, and the chains of the past. That Canada could, and did,
overcome this relics of the dark ages and become an advanced nation
should give us all hope.
--
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
Chom Noamsky
> At least the Canadians are honest about one thing; they let immigrants know
> that homos and their he/she allies are afforded 'special rights' under
> Canadian law. Better there than here.
If it makes your head rotate 360 degrees and your mouth spew green
puke... excellent.
John Baker
>At least the Canadians are honest about one thing; they let immigrants know
>that homos and their he/she allies are afforded 'special rights' under
>Canadian law. Better there than here.
What a disgusting piece of human garbage you are, IBen.
MarkA
I have a question! Why is it that people who oppose homosexuality on
religious grounds think that granting homosexuals the same rights and
privileges as heterosexuals constitutes "special rights"? Are they
really that stupid? Are they deluded? What percentage of them do you
supposed are just bald-faced liars? Isn't lying supposed to be a sin?
--
MarkA
If you are reading this, you can stop now.
Conan the bacterium
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 11:01:20 -0700, Conan the bacterium wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 10:02 am, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > <>
> >> At least the Canadians are honest about one thing; they let immigrants
> >> know that homos and their he/she allies are afforded 'special rights'
>
> > .
> > .
> > .
>
> > gay and lesbian Canadians, who enjoy the full protection of and
> > equal treatment under the law,
>
> > Any questions?
>
> > conan
>
<>
> I have a question! Why is it that people who oppose homosexuality on
> religious grounds think that granting homosexuals the same rights and
> privileges as heterosexuals constitutes "special rights"?
Because, OBVIOUSLY, they will have the right to marry
members of their own sex, and we will not.
Special rights. See?
I keep telling the JYoungs of this world that in
the event that the right of gays to marry is
recognized, then by the 14th Amendment,
HE TOO will automatically have the right
to marry another man himself.
Somehow that always seems to end the discussion.
conan
MarkA
> "MarkA" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:ilojd...@news5.newsguy.com...
> Don't you get sick of your own bullshit?
>
> You are such a fool that even a donkey would give you a kick in passing.
No, I get sick of the bullshit coming from fucktards like "J", and,
apparently, you. If you can be the FIRST person to provide a cogent
explanation of why giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals
constitutes "special rights", we'd all love to hear it.
truexactly
It should refer to all people generically. Sexual preferences should be
irrelevant.
If you go down the path of itemizing people, well for starters left out
blind people - their rights ?
wheel-chaired people - their rights (like due access to disabled
facilities!).
Conan the bacterium
> On 16/03/2011 05:01, Conan the bacterium wrote:
>
> > On Mar 15, 10:02 am, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > <>
> >> At least the Canadians are honest about one thing; they let immigrants know
> >> that homos and their he/she allies are afforded 'special rights'
> > .
> > .
> > .
>
> > gay and lesbian Canadians, who enjoy the full protection of and
> > equal treatment under the law,
>
> > Any questions?
>
> > conan
>
<>
> why is there a need to itemize the type of people ?
There isn't. In fact, my point was that JYoung's
article, in saying that gays get "equal treatment",
contradicts his silly claim that they're getting
"special rights".
> It should refer to all people generically. Sexual preferences should be
> irrelevant.
Entirely correct.
conan
RedDog
> At least the Canadians are honest about one thing; they let immigrants know
> that homos and their he/she allies are afforded 'special rights' under
> Canadian law. Better there than here.
>
>
> OTTAWA, Ontario, March 15, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) Canada s new immigrant
> study guide released Monday now includes references to homosexual marriage
> after considerable pressure from gay rights activists, including Egale
> Canada.
>
> The booklet, called Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of
> Citizenship, is required reading for immigrants and is meant to be an
> introduction to Canadian life before they become citizens. Previous
> versions made no mention of homosexual rights, although a 2009 revision
> included a photo of Olympic gold medallist Mark Tewksbury that identified
> him as a homosexual activist.
>
> CTV reports that the new version of the guide states: Canada s diversity
> includes gay and lesbian Canadians, who enjoy the full protection of and
> equal treatment under the law, including access to civil marriage.
>
> When plans were underway for the revision of the guide last year, Rick
> Dykstra, parliamentary secretary for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, said
> the guide would have similar wording to the Welcome to Canada document.
> That document mentions that homosexuals are protected from unjust
> discrimination and that civil marriage is available for homosexuals, but
> also states that religious institutions cannot be compelled to perform such
> marriages. The new guide does not mention religious freedom on the matter
> of same-sex marriage.
>
> --
> J Young
That's good to know, in case I ever decide to become a cocksucker.
James Dale Guckert
> Homosexuals have same right like everyone else. They can mary (sic) any time any
> other person of opposite gender just like every other person can.
You people are so cute when you say that. One can almost hear the
self-righteous smirk.
--
JDG
WILD BILL TAYLOR
>of same-sex “marriage.”
The document clearly conveys that FREEDOM OF SPEECH is not a right in
canada.
M.I. Wakefield
"Rsunai Ito" <hga...@moret.invalid.il> wrote in message
news:ilph84$9vu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...> news:ilon2...@news6.newsguy.com...
> retarded I'll be explaining yo you one more very, very slowly.
>
> Homosexuals have same right like everyone else. They can mary any time any
Not in Canada; virtually any two non-related adults can marry. Done. Over.
Settled law.
> There is no law excluding homosexuals from any rights, bo such wording in
> any law exist.
>
> Requesting that definition of marriage is changed specially for them is
> requesting special law, which would be discrimination against heterosexual
> and other people.
Why? Heterosexuals have gained the right to marry someone of the same sex;
nothing has been taken from them. How is my marriage lessened by any two
gay people marrying?
Conan the bacterium
> "MarkA" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> retarded I'll be explaining yo you one more very, very slowly.
>
<>
> Homosexuals have same right like everyone else. They can mary any time any
> other person of opposite gender just like every other person can.
> There is no law excluding homosexuals from any rights, bo such wording in
> any law exist.
> Requesting that definition of marriage is changed specially for them is
> requesting special law, which would be discrimination against heterosexual
> and other people.
<>
Not at all.
If the law were extended to allow homosexuals to marry
persons of their own gender, then the Fourteenth
Amendment would guarantee that heterosexuals
also could also marry people of their own gender.
No "special rights" for anyone.
Problem solved.
conan
>
> It is exactly the same if someone born in some other country request change
> of the law regulating election of the USA President for own profit to become
> US President against the will USA citizens claiming that this is
> discrimination to not let everyone from any country to be a US President.
>
> Americans will not accept it, so why normal heteresexual married couples
> have to accept change of the existing laws and traditions ?
>
> Just because you are noisy homosexual?
>
> Then go drop your daks in a gay steam bath instead asking for perversion of
> marriage.
Dänk 666
> At least the Canadians are honest about one thing; they let immigrants know
> that homos and their he/she allies are afforded 'special rights' under
> Canadian law. Better there than here.
>
>
> OTTAWA, Ontario, March 15, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) Canada s new immigrant
> study guide released Monday now includes references to homosexual marriage
> after considerable pressure from gay rights activists, including Egale
> Canada.
> CTV reports that the new version of the guide states: Canada s diversity
> includes gay and lesbian Canadians, who enjoy the full protection of and
> equal treatment under the law, including access to civil marriage.
This sounds reasonable. Holland requires potential Muslim immigrants
to view a video on Dutch society, containing scenes of women in
bikinis or sunbathing topless, gay men kissing, and so on. After
recent acts of violence by Muslim immigrants (e.g., the Theo van Gough
murder), it was felt that they may not have been fully informed about
the nature of European society, so they are now given a chance to
learn what to expect, and if they feel uncomfortable, they are free to
seek another country or continent to migrate to, instead of expecting
their hosts to conform to their medieval standards of morality.
Conan the bacterium
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Conan the bacterium" <deinococcus0radiodur...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:a872ce72-565f-438b...@a11g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> Then go drop your daks in a gay steam bath.
>
> Hint - The unfounded claims/ideas in your posts are at the level of a
> 5 year old: "Could The Hulk beat Woverine?"
>
> In Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee, Lord Penzance defined marriage as 'the
> voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all
> others' and that definition has been followed in all normal countries and by
> all normal Courts.
>
>
>
> > It is exactly the same if someone born in some other country request
> > change
> > of the law regulating election of the USA President for own profit to
> > become
> > US President against the will USA citizens claiming that this is
> > discrimination to not let everyone from any country to be a US President.
>
> > Americans will not accept it, so why normal heteresexual married couples
> > have to accept change of the existing laws and traditions ?
>
> > Just because you are noisy homosexual?
>
> > Then go drop your daks in a gay steam bath instead asking for perversion
> > of
> > marriage.
Whoa! Hey! Calm down! It's all right,
little one, its all right!! No one is going
to FORCE you to marry another man!
Really. What? Yes, I promise. Swear.
OK? All better now?
Good, good.
Off you go now.
conan
M.I. Wakefield
"Eocky" <Eoc...@kissalid.ei> wrote in message
news:ilquu6$8k8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Snip!
> In Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee, <Snip!>
In Canada, H v. H & W was superseded by, among others, Halpern v. Canada
(Attorney General), where the common law definition of marriage was found to
breach Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right
to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination
and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic
origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
So back to the original questions that you couldn't answer:
How is my marriage lessened by flaming closet cases like you and J being
allowed to marry each other?
La...@ymail.com
>
> The document clearly conveys that FREEDOM OF SPEECH is not a right in
> canada.
>
LOL! Another fat American dumbass who doesn't know the limitations to free speech
in his own country. Bet he loves that Bush police state Patriot Act too.
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html
C. Various exceptions to free speech have been recognized in American
law, including obscenity, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement
to crime, "fighting words," and sedition.
Exceptions to Freedom of Expression
Many exceptions to the First Amendment protections have been recognized by
the courts, although not without controversy. Courts sometimes justify
these exceptions as speech which causes substantial harm to the public, or
speech which the Founding Fathers could not have intended to protect, or
traditions that have long been part of the common law tradition from
England that was the basis of our American legal system.
Rather than merely reciting the list of established exceptions, it is
important to understand the rationale for making exceptions to free speech
protection under the Constitution. The value of free speech sometimes
clashes with other important values in our culture.
Discussion QuestionsHow should we weigh the relative importance of these
competing social values? How do we balance free speech against racism,
sexism, or anti-Semitism which promotes values we despise as a country?
against speech which some consider a symptom of the decay of society's
traditional values? against speech which directly results in physical
injury to another person?
Exceptions established by the courts to the First Amendment protections
include the following: Defamation | Causing panic | Fighting words |
Incitement to crime | Sedition | Obscenity
(1) Defamation: Defamation consists of a publication of a statement of
alleged fact which is false and which harms the reputation of another
person.(1) Our right to freedom of expression is restricted when our
expressions (whether a spoken slander or written libel) cause harm to the
reputation of another person. The courts recognize that words can hurt us,
for example, by harming our ability to earn a living (economic harm).
This exception to freedom of expression can be difficult to apply in
practice. Defamation requires an allegation of a fact which is in fact
false. In contrast, the expression of an opinion is not considered
defamation.
Discussion QuestionsImagine an artistic exhibit claiming that certain
named persons, ordinary citizens were child molesters or had a secret Nazi
past or earned extra income as prostitutes. If these are viewed strictly
as factual claims which are false, they would seem to constitute
defamation. But what if the artist said she was expressing a symbolic
commentary or creating a metaphor about the secret lives of ordinary
people, not making an allegation of fact? How should we draw the line in
an artistic work between a factual statement and a symbolic or
metaphorical opinion?
Discussion QuestionsSome years ago, on an eastern college campus, flyers
were distributed with the names of male students randomly drawn from the
student directory, with the label that they were potential rapists.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that this is guerrilla theater art. Were
these flyers statements? Were they false statements? Were the reputations
of the male students harmed? Should these expressions be protected by the
First Amendment if the expressions were made by artists? Should we allow
such statements, even if they are defamatory, if they are made by artists?
How then should we decide who counts as an artist for this exception to
the prohibition on defamation?
In 1990, Donald E. Wildmon, Executive Director of the American Family
Association, published a pamphlet which include excerpts from the work of
artist David Wojnarowicz in an exhibit, "Tongues of Flame." The artist
sued Wildmon and the AFA for (among other things) defamation. Although the
court agreed that "By presenting what are, standing alone, essentially
pornographic images as plaintiff's works of art, without noting that the
images are merely details from larger composite works, the pamphlet is
libelous per se." However, as Wojnarowicz was considered a "public
figure," he also had to show that Wildmon acted with reckless disregard
for the truth. The court held that this higher standard had not been met.
(For the text of this court decision, see Wojnarowicz v. American Family
Association, 745 F.Supp. 130 [S.D.N.Y. 1990]).
Discussion QuestionsDo you agree with Wojnarowicz that presentation of his
work out of context was defamatory? What considerations support the
artist's claims? What arguments can be raised against the artist's claims?
(2) Causing panic: The classic example of speech which is not protected by
the First Amendment, because it causes panic, is falsely shouting "fire"
in a crowded theater. (2) This is narrowly limited to situations in which
a reasonable person would know that it was very likely that his or her
speech would really cause harm to others. We can imagine works of art
which might cause real panic among the audience, perhaps a contemporary
version of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds, which caused considerable
panic when it first aired on the radio, and in turn was based on H.G.
Wells The War of the Worlds.
Discussion QuestionsImagine that a guerilla theater group staged a fake
emergency which a reasonable person would expect would almost certainly
cause real panic among the audience. This might be a theater production
during which the director plans to yell "fire" and cause a stampede by the
audience to the exit doors. Should this exercise of freedom of expression
by artists be protected by the First Amendment? Or could we argue that the
panic resulted simply because naive audience members were unsophisticated
about how to approach art and that freedom of expression should prevail?
Perhaps (one might argue) they do not know how to assume an "aesthetic
attitude" or appropriately "distance" themselves from a work of art.
(3) Fighting words: In the famous case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the
U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect
"fighting words -- those which by their very utterance inflict injury or
tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." (315 U.S. 568, 572
[1942]) This famous exception is much discussed in recent decades, but
rarely the basis for a decision upholding an abridgement of free speech.
This exception warrants scrutiny. Note that the harm involved is physical
harm caused by someone else who was provoked by the speaker whose speech
is being suppressed. The fact that someone else flies into a rage and
causes physical harm results in justifying suppression of speech by
another person!
Discussion QuestionsIt is worth considering why this exception has
declined in acceptance. Are we now more skeptical of claims that people
cannot control their actions? Do we demand the exercise of more
responsibility by persons regardless of what inflammatory words they might
hear? Are we more suspicious of claims of causal necessity in such
situations? Note the irony that we are also witnessing an increase in the
so-called "abuse excuse" in which we seem more likely to excuse someone's
behavior because of something someone else did to them. Is this
inconsistent with the decline in the fighting words exception?
(4) Incitement to crime: It is a crime to incite someone else to commit a
crime, and such speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
Discussion QuestionsIf a budding rap group proposes to perform a work
which includes the exhortation to "kill whitie" or "kill the cops" or
"rape the babe," could that be incitement to a crime? Such records have
been sold by commercial organizations, of course, yet there are no
reported arrests of those artists or record companies for incitement to a
crime. Should such rap lyrics be considered incitement to crime or is the
causal relationship to any actual murders or rapes too tenuous?
Discussion QuestionsA novel criminal defense has arisen, claiming that
such music somehow compelled the defendant to commit the crime. In Austin,
Texas, Ronald Ray Howard, charged with the capital murder of a state
trooper, claimed in his defense that ". . . he learned to hate police
officers from years of listening to rap music with violent anti-police
themes. . . . "(3) Is this an acceptable defense? Why or why not? (The
jury convicted him, reaching a verdict in 35 minutes.)
Discussion QuestionsThe recent attention to violence on television is
largely a debate over whether such televised violence is a cause of actual
violence, such that persons who exhibit violent shows should be held
responsible. If society wants to discourage violence on television, is it
because such depicted violence is clearly a cause of actual violence? Are
there other reasons why society might still feel justified in restricting
this depiction?
Discussion QuestionsIt is easy to imagine highly unpalatable projects
which arguably could be considered an incitement to crime. What if a
fundamentalist religious extremist group publishes a guidebook in this
country on how to commit terrorism in the United States, with detailed
instructions on making bombs, maps showing the homes and offices of
government officials, and so forth. Instructions alone would not seem to
constitute incitement, so assume that the book will also include a
statement from the religion's most revered leader urging that the
guaranteed path to eternal bliss is following the instructions in the
book. Given the presumed audience, might this be incitement to crime?
(5) Sedition: Although not without controversy, the U.S. Supreme Court has
upheld statutes which prohibit the advocacy of unlawful conduct against
the government or the violent overthrow of the government. As with
prohibitions discussed earlier, the expressions in question are assessed
according to the circumstances. Academic discussion of the theories of,
say, Karl Marx presumably would not be prohibited under such a test,
especially in this post-Soviet era. The theoretical consideration and even
endorsement of these views could not remotely be considered to be
reasonable expectations of the actual overthrow of the government. But it
is possible that an artist might develop a project, perhaps guerrilla
theater or an exhibit, that urged the destruction of the United States
(the "Great Satan") by extremist religious groups. The likelihood of
success by the latter group would seem as improbable as the likelihood of
success by contemporary Marxists.
Discussion QuestionsIf the discussion of Marx should not be prohibited as
sedition, should we be consistent and allow discussion by the religious
extremist? Are there any grounds upon which we could distinguish these
situations?
(6) Obscenity: In Miller v. California (413 U.S. 14 [1973]) the U.S.
Supreme Court established a three-pronged test for obscenity prohibitions
which would not violate the First Amendment:
(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community
standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the
prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a
patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the
applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole,
lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Although much debated, this standard remains the law of the land, and
elements of this language have been included in both the authorizing
legislation for the National Endowment for the Arts (20 U.S.C. 951 et
seq.) and the Communications Decency Act (4) prohibiting "obscenity" and
"indecency" on the Internet. The Communications Decency Act was struck
down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 1997. The NEA
legislation was been struck down as unconstitutional by lower courts but
was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998. (NEA v. Finley, No. 97-371,
1998)
Discussion QuestionsOne controversy over this exception to free speech is
whether obscenity causes real harm sufficient to justify suppression of
free speech. Does viewing obscenity make it more likely that a man will
later commit rape, or other acts of violence against women, obviously real
harm to another person? Does reading about war make it more likely that
someone will start a war? Even if there is some evidence of such causal
relationships, however tenuous or strong, is it sufficient to justify this
exception to free speech? Alternatively, could the prohibition on
obscenity be a reflection of moral values and societal standards which
should more properly be handled in the private sector through moral
education, not government censorship?
Discussion QuestionsAnother problem area is determining what counts as
"obscenity". In Miller, the court tried to fashion a standard which could
be adapted to different communities, so that what counts as obscenity in
rural Mississippi might not count as obscenity in Atlanta or New York
City. Is this fair? Do the people in those areas themselves agree on
community standards? What is the "community" for art that is displayed
on-line on the Internet?
Discussion QuestionsAnother controversy in the Miller standard is the
exception for "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."
Who decides what counts as "serious"? If some people consider Penthouse or
the National Enquirer to be serious literature, is it elitist to deny them
this exception from censorship as "obscenity"? Given the controversies in
contemporary art (found objects, performance art, and so forth), what
counts as artistic value? Has the Court solved the problem of defining
"obscenity" or only made it more complicated?
In reviewing these classic exceptions to free speech, it does seem that
real harm can be caused by at least some of these instances of speech.
Following J.S. Mill, we could limit our restrictions to real harm --
physical or economic harm, not psychic or hypothetical harm. If real harm
is present, then we should next address the causal relationship necessary
to hold someone responsible for the harm caused by the expression. This is
not easy, of course, but we do have models for determining when a causal
relationship is sufficiently close ("proximate") to hold someone
responsible. We also have experience in determining whether to hold people
responsible based on whether a reasonable person knew or should have known
the consequences of their actions.
In addition to these established exceptions to freedom of expression,
there are examples of speech which would not cause real harm, in Mill's
sense, but which some believe justify suppression of speech: Offense |
Establishment of Religion
(7) Offense: Although rejected by American courts, some theorists argue
that speech which is merely offensive to others should be another
exception to the First Amendment.(5) In a court challenge to an NEA-funded
exhibit, David Wojnarowicz: Tongues of Flame, David Fordyce and Yvonne
Knickerbocker claimed that the exhibit caused them to "[suffer] a
spiritual injury and that the exhibition caused offense to their religious
sensibilities." (Fordyce v. Frohnmayer, 763 F.Supp. 654, 656 [D.D.C.
1991]) The court rejected the claim, especially as "plaintiffs do not even
allege that they have either seen the exhibition or studied the catalogue
. . . [and thus] have failed to show that they have endured any special
burdens that justify their standing to sue as citizens." Id. But the court
left open the possibility that the plaintiffs might have a claim if "they
had to confront the exhibition daily, . . . the exhibition was visible in
the course of their normal routine, or . . . their usual driving or
walking routes took them through or past the exhibition." Id.
Discussion QuestionsThe complexities of this issue are highlighted when
other examples are considered. What if an exhibit celebrated the practice
of some religions of female genitalia mutilation? Should such exhibits be
accorded the full protection of the First Amendment despite the horror
which most feel about such "religious" practices? Are there some
expressions which are so extremely offensive to many in the population
that they should be banned by the government, even though they cause no
real harm to anyway? By what criteria should this be decided?
(8) Establishment of Religion: Some speech is restricted because it
constitutes the establishment of religion, which is itself prohibited by
the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ("Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion.") Prayer led by a principal in a
public school would violate the establishment clause. Thus, a school
policy prohibiting the principal from leading such prayers would not
violate the right of free speech. This is controversial to some, who
believe that banning prayer in the public schools limits an equally
important right, freedom of religion. This tension illustrates the
not-uncommon challenge of balancing competing and perhaps even
irreconcilable values in the Constitution.
In challenging the Wojnarowicz exhibit, the plaintiffs (above) argued that
the exhibit was critical of their Christian beliefs and thus violated the
establishment clause. The plaintiffs said that they
view the public display of the exhibition as an affront to their
liberty to practice religion free from governmental entanglement and
politically divisive governmental intrusion into the affairs of
religion. (Id. at 655)
But the court said "that merely asserting spiritual injury under the
establishment clause is insufficient to support standing to sue as a
citizen." (Id. at 656)
Discussion QuestionsOf interest here is the difference between spiritual
injury, physical injury or harm, and economic harm. Why are the latter two
sufficient to suppress speech, but not the former? What criteria seem to
be involved in making such a distinction?
A future plaintiff might be able to show sufficient and direct suffering,
but another consideration would rule out such challenges to NEA grants. To
violate the Establishment clause, "Congress . . . [must have decided] how
the . . . funds were to be spent, and the executive branch, in
administering the statute, was merely carrying out Congress' scheme." (6)
At NEA, in contrast, Congress does not "[participate] in the decision to
grant or deny applications for federal funding, . . . . [nor does] NEA
merely [administer] a congressional directive." (Id.) This means that if
NEA denied a grant based on possible violation of the Establishment
Clause, it might violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment.(7)
Note that this reasoning seems to leave open the possibility of a grant by
NEA to promote appreciation for Creationism.
D. Philosophical Consideration of Freedom of Expression
The English philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) articulated what
might be called the "liberal" or (better) the "libertarian" position on
freedom of expression in his 1859 book On Liberty. (8) His test for
appropriate government interference with human liberties is his well-known
"harm" principle, found in Chapter I:
. . . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised
over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to
prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not
a sufficient warrant. (9)
This basic principle provides an excellent rule-of-thumb for approaching
issues of freedom of expression. Most of the classic exceptions to freedom
of expression, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court, are consistent
with this harm principle. The major exception is the legal prohibition on
obscenity, to which Mill would object on the grounds that it does not
cause real harm.
Mill appeals to several principles in defending his position on freedom of
expression. First, how would we know which opinions to suppress as untrue?
We are not, after all, infallible. Second, many opinions include at least
some truth. Only through vigorous debate of conflicting opinions does the
truth eventually come out. Third, even if the opinions selected by the
government as true were indeed true, people would not necessarily believe
it, but would consider it prejudice. Fourth, the government-approved
opinions would not be understood and appreciated by the public, as the
views would not have been developed "from reason or personal
experience."(10)
Contemporary philosophers following Mill's approach have summarized the
exceptions to freedom of expression established by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Joel Feinberg, for example, has considered "how the liberal [i.e., Mill's]
principles that support free expression of opinion generally also define
the limits to what the law can permit to be said." (11) Carl Cohen has
also used this approach in analyzing limits on freedom of expression.(12)
Critics of Mill's approach to freedom of expression generally accept the
harm principle as a justification for suppressing speech, but claim that
additional reasons are sufficient to suppress speech. Patrick Devlin and
Edmund Pincoffs, for example, believe that the government should enforce
morality and thus should legislate morality, suppressing speech to further
that goal. (13) Others criticize Mill's assumption that a successful
democracy depends upon freedom of expression for a healthy debate about
the issues.(14)
Sulfate
<snip>
> Canada law is obviously overtaken by perverts and sexual predators without
> brain.
<snip>
Canadian law remains largely unconcerned with the shrill cries of the
zealot.
(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Social RETARD, BILL TAYLOR (aka "Eocky")
<Eoc...@kissalid.ei> spewed:
> Canada law is obviously...
...SENSIBLY enacted by FAIR-minded egalitarians.
The diametric OPPOSITE of lowlife LOSERS lke you.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Submoronic Bigot, Bill Taylor, Regularly REMINDS
Everyone that He's Merely an INSECURE Little Dweeb
...as we see HERE, where Taylor wrote:
> You came to that conclusion simply because I "BITCH SLAPPED"
> your sorry ass, boy?
One of the BEST ways to spot a LOSER with a profound inferiority
complex is to see if they condescendingly call perfectly normal people
who are exponentially more "together" than they are, "boy."
It's a dead giveaway! 100% of the time. (Try and think if you've
EVER seen an exception to that.)
And just like Taylor, they almost always are too IGNORANT to
even realize they're revealing their weakness so OBVIOUSLY.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Eocky
Social RETARD spam in message
news:oqq2o6ldggvdkfool...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:18:44 +1100,
>
>
The usual deluded poison.
>
> _____________________
> /| /| | STOP REPEATING SPAM |
> ||__|| | Do not feed the troll |
> / O O\ | Craig Chilton. Thank you. |
> / \ | You reply to him will initiate |
> / \ \|__ more advertising spam _|
> / _ \ \ ||
> / |\____\ \ ||
> / | | | |\__/ ||
> / \|_|_|/ | _ ||
> / / \ |____| ||
> / | | | --|
> | | | |__ _ --|
> * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
> *-- _--\ _ \ | ||
> / _ \\ | / `
> * / \_ /- | | |
> * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
>
(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Barry Bruyea
>WILD BILL TAYLOR wrote
>>
>> The document clearly conveys that FREEDOM OF SPEECH is not a right in
>> canada.
>>
>
>LOL! Another fat American dumbass who doesn't know the limitations to free speech
>in his own country. Bet he loves that Bush police state Patriot Act too.
I'd like to point out that the Patriot Act received approval in
congress by an overwhelming majority of both parties. I'd also like
to point out that the Canadian Anti-Terrorist act is just as
restrictive on Freedoms as the Patriot Act and in some cases more
draconian. IMHO, both pieces of legislation are a piece of crap and
an obscene crack in our democracy. As to 'Free Speech', neither
country, either through legislation or common practice are adhering to
that concept these days. Hate Laws & Political Correctness have
invaded our society to an extent that we can no longer hold our heads
up proclaiming adherence to Freedom of Speech.
MarkA
>
> "MarkA" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:ilon2...@news6.newsguy.com...
> I am not the first, it was explained thousands of times but as you are
> retarded I'll be explaining yo you one more very, very slowly.
>
> Homosexuals have same right like everyone else. They can mary any time any
> other person of opposite gender just like every other person can.
That's the problem. The law has no business restricting marriage to
opposite gender couples. That is strictly a religious convention, and, in
the USA, the government is prohibited from religious favoritism. If there
were no legal ramifications to being married, it wouldn't matter, but
there are, so it does.
>
> There is no law excluding homosexuals from any rights, bo such wording
> in any law exist.
>
> Requesting that definition of marriage is changed specially for them is
> requesting special law, which would be discrimination against
> heterosexual and other people.
Here's another point that needs explaining: how does broadening the
definition of marriage to include same-sex couples "discriminate against
heterosexual people? I am a married heterosexual, and it would not impact
me in the slightest if the homosexual couple down the street got married.
>
> It is exactly the same if someone born in some other country request
> change of the law regulating election of the USA President for own
> profit to become US President against the will USA citizens claiming
> that this is discrimination to not let everyone from any country to be a
> US President.
>
> Americans will not accept it, so why normal heteresexual married couples
> have to accept change of the existing laws and traditions ?
>
> Just because you are noisy homosexual?
>
> Then go drop your daks in a gay steam bath instead asking for perversion
> of marriage.
Here's an analogy to try: suppose the tax code gave special consideration
to people who are baptized. Those who are not baptized would have a
legitimate grievance, and people who are would feel threatened that their
special privilege was being threatened.
--
MarkA
If you can read this, you can stop reading now.
RLunfa
RLunfa
"Mickey Mouse" <m...@disslal.ca> escribi� en el mensaje
news:ilufs7$tlt$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
| X-No-Archive: Yes
|
| "This is reply to Social RETARD "(3<--Craig Chilton - Faggot's wings
| replaced with faggot's activity 3<--)"
| <drivers...@ymail.com> who trolled again" in message
| news:6du2o69dc54ppc2va...@4ax.com...>
| >
| >
| >> Homosexuality would NO more be Discussed than EYE COLOR is.
| >>
| >>
| >
| > ROTFL !! So why are you pushing this issue ?
| >
| > Don't you get sick of your own bullshit?
| >
| > We are not interested. But, you homosexual/abortion fanatics LOVE to
| > make up bullshit that fit into your little fantasy world.
| >
| >
| > Grow a brain and face facts you stupid asshole:
| >
| > 1. Advertising "business" in Christian group is spam.
| >
| > 2. Promoting homosexualism and abortion in Catholic group is
trolling.
| >
| >
| > \|||/
| > (o o)
| > ,---ooO--(_)--------.
| > | Please don't |
| > | feed the TROLL!
| > | Craig Chilton ! |
| > `-------------ooO---'
| > |__|__|
| > || ||
| > ooO Ooo
| >
| > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
| >
| > Craig Chilton , anti-family troll and spammer life achievments: More
than
| > 10,000 irrelevant adverising spams, the most identical, to 254 groups in
| > only 45 days from thr same retarded troll known as "Iowa Internet Idiot
| > with
| > faggot wings".
| >
| >
| > What a moronic, subhuman bigot add assecory to murder of babies.
| >
| >
| > A Troll is a bulletin-board participant who posts for one or
| > both of two reasons:
| >
| > 1) to disrupt;
| > 2) to gain attention.
| >
| >
| > If you are so DESPERATE for love and attention - why not go drop your
| > daks
| > in a local gay bar instead trolling in the wrong the internet groups?
| >
| > Because even abortionists and homosexuals are laughing on your posts ?
| >
| >
| >
| > To report Craig Chilton profile for abuse:
| >
| > http://www.google.com/support/bin/static.py?page=ts.cs&ts=1114905
| >
| > http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=81275
| >
| > Go to a message written by the owner of the profile you want to report.
| > 1.. Click "View profile," next to the author's name.
| > 2.. Click Report this profile.
| > 3.. Choose the radio button next to the Type of Abuse you want to
report.
| > 4.. Click "Report Abuse."
| > Blatant advertisisng (spam) pretending to participate in discussion.
| >
| > This troll and spammer Craig Chilton posted more than 10,000 mostly
| > identical abusive hate messages in 45 days.
| >
| >
| > ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
| >
| > Marriage is an institution that is linked with healthy sexuality as it
| > must be because it is about sexual morality.
| >
| > marriage is about obligations and duties and
| > bonds. when a couple enter into marriage, they are surrendering
| > certain freedoms and even rights. a man without kids can do as he
| > pleases with his money.
| >
| > but, a man with a wife and kids is morally
| > obligated--thru marriage vows--to spend his money for the welfare of
| > his wife and kids. it's not against the law to not feed hungry kids
| > of someone else; it is against the law to starve your own kids.
| >
| > for example, you wear glasses and have poor eyesight. okay, that
| > doesn't mean you're a bad person. but, you shouldn't expect us to
| > consider poor eyesight as good or healthy. it is a defect, and one
| > must deal with it the best way one can.
| >
| > problem is gay agenda folks will not even accept that homosexuality
| > is a defect.
| >
| > they say it's sexually just as legitimate as heterosexuality.
| >
| > what is the rational or scientific basis for this?
| >
| > what does ass-fuc*ing have to do with reproduction which is the
| > essential nature of sexuality?
| >
| > all defects have disadvantages. that's why it's called a defect.
| >
| > if you're deaf, you can't hear.
| > if you're blind, you can't see.
| > if you have no limbs, you can't walk.
| > if you're gay, you can't have kids thru gay sex.
| >
| > but, they wanna force us to regard gayness as normal.
| >
| > also, though they can't have kids thru gay sex, they want the right to
| > adopt children who were created thru hetero-sex. think about it:
| >
| > gay couple want kids. but, their defective sexuality can't produce kids.
| >
| > but, they wanna pretend that it can.
| >
| > so they adopt a kid and then say 'this is OUR kid' as though they
brought
| > the
| > kid into this world.
| >
| > it's all about taking money for children on taxpayers expense.
| >
| >
| >
| >
|
|
Dänk 666
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:18:55 +1100, Rsunai Ito wrote:
>
> > Homosexuals have same right like everyone else. They can mary any time any
> > other person of opposite gender just like every other person can.
>
> That's the problem. The law has no business restricting marriage to
> opposite gender couples. That is strictly a religious convention, and, in
> the USA, the government is prohibited from religious favoritism. If there
> were no legal ramifications to being married, it wouldn't matter, but
> there are, so it does.
Marriage itself is a religious convention, so the government has no
more business certifying it than it does certifying baptisms or bar
mitzvahs. One could reasonably argue that excluding Jewish children
from baptisms, or Christian children from bar mitzvahs, is
discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Given that most children today are born of unwed couples, there is no
rationale for the government to bestow official recognition on some
sexual relationships and not others. The whole concept of marriage is
archaic; people have a right to define their own personal
relationships, and the government has no business in recognizing
them. Two or more consenting adults of any gender should be allowed
to live together and describe their relationships however they want
without government approval. Conversely, their self-proclaimed
relationships should garner them no special privileges.
Apostate
alt.atheism:
>On Mar 17, 10:43 am, MarkA <some...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:18:55 +1100, Rsunai Ito wrote:
>>
>> > Homosexuals have same right like everyone else. They can mary any time any
>> > other person of opposite gender just like every other person can.
>>
>> That's the problem. The law has no business restricting marriage to
>> opposite gender couples. That is strictly a religious convention, and, in
>> the USA, the government is prohibited from religious favoritism. If there
>> were no legal ramifications to being married, it wouldn't matter, but
>> there are, so it does.
>
>Marriage itself is a religious convention,
Yes, but there was marriage before any Abrahamic religion existed, (probably before
*any* religion existed) so marriage is also a civil convention, important to the broader
civil society for the management of property (and yes, I recognize that has its roots in
an understanding that the wife and children were property.)
>so the government has no
>more business certifying it than it does certifying baptisms or bar
>mitzvahs.
No; there's a clear difference between registering a partnership/business merger
cum property melding, and sacraments that are of no practical civil concern outside
of religion.
>One could reasonably argue that excluding Jewish children
>from baptisms, or Christian children from bar mitzvahs, is
>discriminatory and unconstitutional.
One could argue, but not within a city block of 'reasonably'.
>Given that most children today are born of unwed couples, there is no
>rationale for the government to bestow official recognition on some
>sexual relationships and not others. The whole concept of marriage is
>archaic; people have a right to define their own personal
>relationships, and the government has no business in recognizing
>them. Two or more consenting adults of any gender should be allowed
>to live together and describe their relationships however they want
>without government approval. Conversely, their self-proclaimed
>relationships should garner them no special privileges.
I am sympathetic to some of those points, but others continue to fail to acknowledge the
duality of marriage as an older civil and only a younger religious agreement. If you like
to "one might argue", civil law has the prior claim, so maybe it's organized superstition
that has no right to interfere in the matter. I'm not standing on that, but just trying
to show that it's a little bit arbitrary, what you say.
--
Apostate alt.atheist #1931 plonktheist #1
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer freelance Minion #'e'
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Getting Paid,
Department of Redundancy Department
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell
"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
-- Doc Smartass
"Nature has a dark sense of humor, but life is certainly
one of the things it laughs at."
-- Rinaldo of Capadoccia
e-mail to %mynick%periodaaperiod%myAA#%@gee!mail!dottedcommie
WILD BILL TAYLOR
wrote:
>The law has no business restricting marriage to opposite gender couples.
Sure it does because that's what laws are for to protect the people
from disease spreading vermin like you male homosexuals.
WILD BILL TAYLOR
knackers, and barbaric old-dirt-road yearns for aged back-porch for
dynamic anal-rape fantasies.
If you enjoy volcanic zwooshing the swoosh, then email me at
mailto:W...@EASY.NEWS.
M.I. Wakefield
"WILD BILL TAYLOR" <W...@EASY.NEWS> wrote in message
news:jet6o69iksab80pn3...@4ax.com...
Study after study has shown that the most homophobic of men are turned on
when they are exposed to gay porn ... straight men who are accepting of gays
are not.
Draw your own conclusions.
M.I. Wakefield
"M.I. Wakefield" <bed...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ONKgp.152328$y35....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/poll-support-for-marriage_n_837641.html
For the first time, a poll has found that a majority of Americans support
gay marriage; 53% for, 44% against.
WILD BILL TAYLOR
OK, my conclusion is that there is nothing in or about homosexuality
that isn't porn based.
BTW - Don't you think it a bit counter productive to try to insult
people by calling them WHAT YOU ARE? It demonstrates the
self hate and low self esteem that is inherent in homosexuals.
I would never emply that you are a closeted heterosexual see
how that works, Rube?
WILD BILL TAYLOR
What polls claim and how people vote is two different things, Rube.
(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
BILL TAYLOR <W...@EASY.NEWS> wrote:
> "M.I. Wakefield"<bed...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/poll-support-for-marriage_n_837641.html
>>
>> For the first time, a poll has found that a majority of Americans support
>> gay marriage; 53% for, 44% against.
> What polls claim and how people vote is two different things, Rube.
You'll soon see how UNTRUE that is, bigoted LOSER.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
BILL TAYLOR **REMINDS** us that he not only is a LIAR
but also is a TOTAL IGNORAMUS!!
Moronic BIGOTS have ZERO credibility.
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:45:38 -0500,
Submoronic Bigot, Bill Taylor (aka "BE-VA")
<blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>> Jon Schild <j...@xmission.com> said:
>>>> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>>>> Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>>>>>> How does gay marriage affect YOUR marriage?
>>>>> There's the question that we will NEVER see ANY bigot being
>>>>> able to answer!
>>>> My favorite non-answer is, "Well, it wouldn't really affect my
>>>> marriage specifically. My concern is the damage to marriage as
>>>> an institution." Of course, they can't explain what that is either.
>>> Homosexuals couldn't care less about marriage as an institution.
>> 36,000 of them in California, alone, proved you WRONG, last year.
> But 24,000 of them have since divorced or died of AIDS.
ROTFLMAO... After saying something THAT blatantly and LYINGLY
stupid, THIS will make a great SIG -- so that people can FREQUENTLY
be reminded that you -- just like other desperate homophobic bigots who
are helplessly watching their ludicrous hate-agendas swirling down the
Drain of EXTINCTION, to join those of equally submoronic segregation-
ists -- are nothing but a ridiculous social RETARD. A laughingstock.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Gypsy
www.LayoffRemedy.com>" <p...@p.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:14:36 -0400,
>
> BILL TAYLOR <W...@EASY.NEWS> wrote:
> > "M.I. Wakefield"<bed...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >> For the first time, a poll has found that a majority of Americans support
> >> gay marriage; 53% for, 44% against.
> > What polls claim and how people vote is two different things, Rube.
>
> You'll soon see how UNTRUE that is, bigoted LOSER.
>
I'm not gay, but I live in Toronto and know what the police say when
they have the "Gay Pride" parade.
The cops have no violence, rapes, shootings or anything when 1 million
Gay people descend on Toronto and spend big bucks. The problem they
have is with jackasses like "Wild Bill". The jails are full of
morons like him who are busted for picking fights, gay bashing,
vandalism and generally being assholes.
Of course they can't guarantee the safety of buggers like "Wild Bill"
when they're tossed into the Don Jail.
There's probably some horny hetro criminals in the same cell who are
looking for fresh meat and imagining that Hillbillies like "Wild Bill"
are their "hoes" ;)
Gypsy
> "M.I. Wakefield" <bed...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:ONKgp.152328$y35....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "WILD BILL TAYLOR" <W...@EASY.NEWS> wrote in message
> >news:jet6o69iksab80pn3...@4ax.com...
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>The law has no business restricting marriage to opposite gender couples.
>
> >> Sure it does because that's what laws are for to protect the people
> >> from disease spreading vermin like you male homosexuals.
>
> > Study after study has shown that the most homophobic of men are turned on
> > when they are exposed to gay porn ... straight men who are accepting of
> > gays are not.
>
> > Draw your own conclusions.
>
>
> For the first time, a poll has found that a majority of Americans support
> gay marriage; 53% for, 44% against.
I've been married twice. All I can say is if some asshole thinks
that same-sex-marriage is endangering the sanctity of the marriage
they have with their wife, don't hire a divorce lawyer.
Canada's divorce rate is lower than the USA. We've allowed women to
marry women and men to marry men for 6 years now, and so far the
divorce attorneys haven't made any extra money. ;)
John Baker
wrote:
>
>Social RETARD spam in message
>news:oqq2o6ldggvdkfool...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:18:44 +1100,
>> ,
<yawn>
That's nice, Billy. Now, why don't you answer the question? How does
the gay couple down the street diminish *my* marriage?
Dänk 666
> WILD BILL TAYLOR wrote
>
>
>
> > The document clearly conveys that FREEDOM OF SPEECH is not a right in
> > canada.
>
> LOL! Another fat American dumbass who doesn't know the limitations to free speech
> in his own country. Bet he loves that Bush police state Patriot Act too.
>
> http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html
>
> C. Various exceptions to free speech have been recognized in American
> law, including obscenity, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement
> to crime, "fighting words," and sedition.
>
> Exceptions to Freedom of Expression
>
> Many exceptions to the First Amendment protections have been recognized by
> the courts, although not without controversy. Courts sometimes justify
> these exceptions as speech which causes substantial harm to the public, or
> speech which the Founding Fathers could not have intended to protect, or
> traditions that have long been part of the common law tradition from
> England that was the basis of our American legal system.
Would exceptions to the First Amendment include Sharia "law," which
demands the execution of "blasphemers" or those who convert from
Islam to another religion?
Recently, leftards -- who normally are virulently anti-religious --
have been defending the right of the Cult of Islam to operate in
Western society. Freedom of religion means the right of Islam to kill
those who convert to other religionst. Freedom of speech means the
right of Islam to kill those who dare to insult its oh-so-fucking-holy
"prophet."
Christianity killed homosexuals 500 years ago. Islam kills
homosexuals today.. Which is the greater evil?
Gay rights in "progressive" Islamist Iran:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/108/298265577_8e6bc9e117_o.jpg
Brian Taylor
Canada doesn't accept Sharia Law, Orthodox Greek Tribunals, Catholic
Tribunals or other rubbish.
Canada says that there is only one law. And that law accepts,
according to the Supreme Court and the Legislature, that homosexuals
are no different than you or me. They have the right to be married
and the right to all that married relationships allow.
Vice President Cheney is for same sex marriage because his daughter is
gay, and has given him a baster boy grandson, who he loves.
President Obama is personally against same-sex-marriage.
The Prime Minister of Canada who was in charge when the Supreme Court
decision came down, was an ardent Catholic who opposed same-sex-
marriage. But he had the balls to stand up and agree with the law.
(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Brian Taylor <bill_c...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Canada doesn't accept Sharia Law, Orthodox Greek Tribunals,
> Catholic Tribunals or other rubbish.
>
> Canada says that there is only one law. And that law accepts,
> according to the Supreme Court and the Legislature, that homosexuals
> are no different than you or me. They have the right to be married
> and the right to all that married relationships allow.
>
> Vice President Cheney is for same sex marriage because his daughter
> is gay, and has given him a baster boy grandson, who he loves.
> President Obama is personally against same-sex-marriage.
Per the latest reliable polls, the tipping point has finally been
passed for most Americans: 53% now SUPPORT same-sex marriage.
So hopefully, Obama soon will outgrow his irrational prejudice, too!
> The Prime Minister of Canada who was in charge when the Supreme
> Court decision came down, was an ardent Catholic who opposed same-
> sex marriage. But he had the balls to stand up and agree with the law.
GOOD for HIM!! It's always NEAT when an RCC Cult lemming has
an epiphany and realizes how WRONG that medieval cult has been!
For all of them who haven't gotten there yet, consider the points
in the SIG below, and FORWARD those points all over the place:
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
4 INTELLIGENT and SENSIBLE Reasons to REJECT the RCC Cult
(Enhanced with Additional Relevant Facts)
-- They oppose voluntary birth control, which is necessary,
-- They oppose homosexuality, which is merely a variation of
NORMALCY that people are BORN with. Like eye color & race,
-- They oppose same-sex marriage, which is 100% harmless,
-- They regard women to be second-class citizens, in many ways,
-- They depend upon brainwashing their lemmings starting at birth,
-- The Vatican SHIELDS pedophile priests who have abuse many
THOUSANDS of altar boys from the justice system, and moves
them around, enabling them to CONTINUE abusing children.
The current Pope was a KEY facilitator of this criminal-coddling
before becoming Pope, and should be charged with that.
-- They have OPULENT edifices in poverty-stricken regions,
-- They oppose the valuable REMEDY of abortion, which restores
full ranges of future opportunities to 57,000,000 girls and
women every year, worldwide,
-- They oppose the use of condoms to prevent the spread of STDs,
-- They promote serious belief in kooky stuff,
-- They seek to FORCE full gestation of UNwanted pregnancies
upon women, which would be a 9-month-long form of RAPE,
-- They employ dire scare tactics to compel obedience,
-- They insult Jesus and LIE in their nonsensical claim that the wine
and bread (wafer) in communion is transformed into Jesus
actual blood and body. (So it looks like all their priests should
move to a location that would be *fitting* for that: Transylvan-
ia. This also would make *ghouls" of all the congregants.)
In fact, "transubstantiation" was rolled out in 1215 by the
butcher of Beziers, France, Pope Innocent III (b. Lotario di
Segni) -- 1161-1216,
-- They LIE that it is a sin to skip going to mass,
-- They order women NOT to use effective methods of birth con-
trol (and thus guarantee a steady supply of NEW lemmings),
-- They *retain* SCARY ways to penalize dissidents in their bylaws.
-- They vastly *over-complicate* Christianity,
-- They CON their lemmings into thinking they need to pray to the
spirits of dead people (e.g., Mary), or ask for their intervention,
when the Bible makes it very CLEAR that the ONLY intermediary
between humanity and God is Jesus Christ. And that people are
to pray *directly* to HIM -- or directly to God, the Father IN the
name of Jesus,
-- They indoctrinate their lemmings in the "necessity" of confessing
to human priests, when praying directly to Jesus or God, as de-
scribed above, is ALL that anyone needs to do. Confessing to
priests is an intimidation device and ploy to help KEEP people
conned,
-- They treat humanly-concocted dogmas as though Biblical,
-- They are led by someone who helped cover up the raping of
children for years,
-- If they still had the power to do so, they would feel quite pious in
torturing you to death if you even questioned one of their beliefs...
Oops, sorry. I went past 4. Inertia you know. It's hard to stop
once you get rolling.
-- Mark A., 9-10-10
(With some modifications and 14 additions provided by me.)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
-- (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) E-Mail me if you wish, from sites below:
http://www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the hateful RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Cult Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
http://www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL
WILD BILL TAYLOR
You're just saying that because it's that time of the month for you.
You'll be back to your sweet self again in about three days.
>*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Liberals are vermin
WILD BILL TAYLOR
<http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>" <p...@p.com> wrote:
> Per the latest reliable polls, the tipping point has finally been
>passed for most Americans: 53% now SUPPORT same-sex marriage.
>So hopefully, Obama soon will outgrow his irrational prejudice, too!
What is a reliable poll, dip shit? The only poll that counts is the
way people vote and you dream of America becoming a homosexually
dominated country like Canada is going quickly down the shitter along
with fuck wits like you.
(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Social RETARD, BILL TAYLOR <W...@EASY.NEWS> wrote:
...NOTHING that was the least bit intelligent. As usual.
<flush mindless bigotry by a LOSER>