« BACK TO FORUM
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Andrew Lauman
Joined: Oct 18, 2002
Posts: 157 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: Canada
Province/State: British Columbia
City: Vancouver
|
Gay rights 1, free speech 0
March 30, 2004 - 10:27 AM
|
|
Of all places, an excellent article on a controversial issue.
http://www.canada.com/search/story.html?id=07e805f2-bd27-4aa4-8274-4dedb2172b10
It amazes me how fast Canada is changing. I hate to say, but it is for the worse. Our great country is being bankrupt by politicians who don't know what destiny is all about.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Martin Kuplens-Ewart
Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Posts: 81 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 29
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Re: Gay rights 1, free speech 0
March 30, 2004 - 11:22 AM
|
|
Oh, please.
I as a human being deserve the right to live without someone writing texts or giving speeches, urging people to assault or kill me.
That is what this bill protects against, not some biblical verse in an otherwise abandoned chapter, that might, if so interpreted, suggest that engaging in homosexual acts is wrong.
-m
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Hugh Switzer
Joined: Jul 29, 2002
Posts: 721 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Re: Gay rights 1, free speech 0
March 30, 2004 - 11:24 AM
|
|
I'm sorry, but do you believe that I should be able to walk around the city and tell everyone that I am going to kill blacks and that they are all useless and should all be killed? (I DO NOT believe this, just an example)
Or how about having Neo-Nazi's walk around and yell at jewish people? Telling them that they should all be dead?
hmm.
BTW, if you read closely, it covers all groups INCLUDING gays. This has not been created to just to protect them, but also people of different ethnic origin etc. Did you even read the article?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Andrew Lauman
Joined: Oct 18, 2002
Posts: 157 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: Canada
Province/State: British Columbia
City: Vancouver
|
Re: Gay rights 1, free speech 0
March 30, 2004 - 11:37 AM
|
|
Whatever one thinks of gay rights or same-sex marriage, it is unconscionable in a democracy that one side should succeed in using the law to shut up the other.
That's the issue.
Obviously I am against hate literature or hate crimes of any kind. This article and this issue isn't about that.
Mr. Owens' case does not stand in isolation. Scott Brockie, a Christian with a print shop in Toronto, was forced at about the same time to do printing for a gay and lesbian advocacy group, even though he claimed that doing so would force him to compromise his religious convictions. A board of inquiry for the Ontario Human Rights Commission declared that while Mr. Brockie was "free to hold his religious beliefs and to practise them in his home, and in his Christian community," in public, the rights of gays trumped his religious freedom. And last month, a B.C. court upheld the suspension of Chris Kempling, a high school counsellor, not for anything he did or said at school, but rather for writing letters to the editor of his local newspaper questioning the naturalness of the homosexual lifestyle.
I should have the freedom to express my views. Obviously it shouldn't be the kind that instigates hatred, but I should be able to speak against gay issues. That's my right.
Maybe you guys should read the article again. 
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Martin Kuplens-Ewart
Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Posts: 81 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 29
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Re: Gay rights 1, free speech 0
April 4, 2004 - 10:40 AM
|
|
1. The reality is, a business cannot discriminate against a person on the basis of race, disability, gender, sexuality, and a whole range of other things. Beliefs simply do not factor into running a business. That's reality. Just ask all the people who don't eat pork for religious reasons but work in restaurants that serve it. Same deal. Mr. Brockie was in the wrong. That's just how it works. Imagine if you went into a business and paid for their services, and then while working on the job for you, they found out you were gay, and then stopped work, saying they refuse to work for gays. That is simply indefensible.
2. So the kids he counsels don't read the local paper? Or their parents? Listen: Mr. Kempling is a guidance counsellor. Kids in his school need to feel like they are able to approach him to talk about *anything* that is bugging them. Blanket trust. When your guidance teacher, the one person in your school designated as the person you should talk to about emotional or academic things, basically says "I think that homosexuality is unnatural" and (presumably) insinuates that gays and lesbians are sinners, he is implictly shutting the door to those students who are gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered/transsexual/intersex. He is basically saying "I'm happy to work with my students, but before you walk in my door, realise that I think that you are unnatural".
A letter to an editor is a public statement. It is not something that happens to be overheard. Mr. Kempling made a conscious decision to stand on a soapbox and shout out to his community that homosexuality is unnatural. In doing so, he created an environment hostile to a segment of the student body, and which risks leading to desperate action on the part of those students - suicide at its worst. He deserves to be removed from his duties.
You absolutely have the right to speak about the struggle for equal rights. Of course. But you cannot do so creating an environment that is hostile toward that group to the point of potentially causing actual harm. That is hate-speech.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Andrew Lauman
Joined: Oct 18, 2002
Posts: 157 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: Canada
Province/State: British Columbia
City: Vancouver
|
Re: Gay rights 1, free speech 0
April 5, 2004 - 02:37 AM
|
|
1. Ok, good point on the first one. I agree. However, I respect the stand that He made. Doesn't believe in their cause so he didn't do it. Why should he have too? Business is based upon good business decisions. Many decisions affect business.
Such as the case with Enron, Tyco and other big businesses. Making bad decisions and it has affected them. See as a Business begins to works with the principles of God, you will start seeing powerful companies that are ethically sound. God's principles do not align with Homosexuality. Not good business. You won't agree. And your right. Because we are in a fallen world. The world is based upon greed. Many business's that are incorporating tolerance for everything. Immorality. However, what they don't realise is that they are bringing a curse to their business. However, what you can't see is that the business model is changing. The most succesful business models in the next century will be the ones who incorporate Godly principles within them.
Thus why America has been the most powerful country in the world. Based upon Godly principles.
However, can't you see the hyprocrisy in your last statement.
What about the Teacher who espouses homosexuality? The Teacher works for a christian school and is fired for such statements. You would have such a backlash of massive proportions. It would be flippin ridiculous.
Definitely not hate speech. Homosexuality is wrong. He is telling people it is wrong. Hate speech is firing him and telling him that he is no longer acceptable in an intolerant society.
Homosexuality is wrecking those kids and people lives and they should be warned of the danger. However, so should they be warned of immorality and any other sin. The wages of sin bring destruction. Intolerance is allowing those people and kids to continue towards destruction.
Is this hate speech or truth? Intolerance comes because it doesn't want to accept the truth. The truth is, homosexuality wrecks lives. Intolerance would come if he didn't say anything. If he just went along with what every one else was saying as acceptable.
So I dont' agree. The teacher should have a right to his opinion. Freedom of Speech.
Bless ya
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
|
Home
Community
