LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

The comments from that site hurt my soul.

How can people be so cruel..

It tugged at my heartstrings when the defendant said his life was over. Not because I think he was treated unjustly. Because it's sad that there are people like him whose lives revolve around spreading propaganda claiming that people like me are evil villains who must be destroyed for the greater good.

If the Supreme Court in America made a ruling like this, people would be up in arms, claiming their "freedom" was being violated. And increasingly I find myself asking why. Why should your privilege be protected? Why can't you just leave us the hell alone? Why should I be subject to the rules of a god who can't even be bothered to prove its own existence, yet will torture me for eternity because I didn't worship it the right way?

edited 12th May '13 1:20:52 AM by Morgikit

I just came here to say one thing.

My mother is a christian,

She supports gay marriage.

Good for her.

I'm disappointed by this ruling. A free society should not bother itself with policing the opinions and thoughts of it's citizens. Nor engaging in arbitrary discussions of moral philosophy on if one really can 'hate the sin while loving the sinner'.

edited 12th May '13 3:40:36 AM by joeyjojo

That assumes, however, that speech has no real-world impact, which has been proven to be a myth more times than I can count.

Of course speech has real world impact. That's exactly why it's should not be be subject to wimp of the law.

edited 12th May '13 3:52:56 AM by joeyjojo

This was less a policing of opinions, and more a court order to stop being a twat.

Isn't the purpose of our justice system to prevent people from harming each other, though? If speech has consequences, they can be damaging consequences.

Free speech for free speech's sake is all well and good... but. When it's deliberately being used as a weapon to attack others with with little grounds for substance, I don't see why you can't be served with a cease and desist notice just as if you were slinging rocks at them. :|

I mean, if the US had such laws, half of what the Republican party (and Fox News) gets away with wouldn't be possible, thanks to lack of corroborative evidence that could stand up in court. And, your politics might be better for it. <shrugs>

edited 12th May '13 4:06:34 AM by Euodiachloris

Didn't freedom of speech originally just mean you were allowed to criticize the government anyway?

^^ What my politics, personally? I don't watch FOX News....

I can accept that in cases where individuals are being harassed or Incitement of violence against a group then the law should take action. But seriously 'sticks and stones people. There is no right not to be offended by some one. Being called a sinner or sodomite cannot in and of itself harm you in anyway.

The role of the justice system is not to protect people from from some nebulous 'harm'. It's to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual. Both from the tyranny of the government and the masses themselves.

edited 12th May '13 4:22:56 AM by joeyjojo

Harm is often to your rights and freedoms. <_< (Seriously: I don't get how that isn't the role of government and institutional watchdogs in the first place.)

What is the point of having one if it doesn't act as a check and a balance to everybody's behaviour? Do you want false information being given just as much importance as the good stuff? Even if not doing so can prevent positive changes in social attitudes?

People would be a lot less freer to advertise or even support "gay therapies" if they had to produce independent, verifiable proof every time they went on about them in definite terms, for instance.

edited 12th May '13 4:26:25 AM by Euodiachloris

While I would love to spend the next five hours debating the role of the government as harbingers of social truth we would be really going off topic. I'm pro for the record.

As for the article in question, while the website itself is hardly inbiased. I believe there was nothing in the individual's remarks which were declared Intentionally deceptive or fraudulent.

edited 12th May '13 4:48:24 AM by joeyjojo

If he'd just said "Homosexuality is a sin." and left it at that, I'd be pissed at the Court, but he was peddling outright bullshit so eh.

edited 12th May '13 6:35:40 AM by majoraoftime

I'd point out theres a difference between Freedom of Speech, and freedom of consequences.

if I walk into a crowded room and yell fire, then just because I was free to say fire doesnt mean I'm free from wrongful death suits for anyone who gets trampled to death in the ensuing chaos.

Same here, he's entitled to say whatever shit he wants about homosexuals, but his freedom ends about the point where he actively distributes hateful lies about them.

edited 12th May '13 8:28:21 AM by Midgetsnowman

Exactly. What if someone had read one of this guy's flyers claiming homosexual men are child molesters, decided that his next door neighbor who was gay (or who he perceived to be gay) is molesting children and shot him? Don't know if you could bring charges against him, but his "freedom of speech" could have cost an innocent man his life.

Maybe freedom isn't always a good thing. That's why we don't have the freedom to send death threats.

Freedom of speech does not make slander legal, and I figure some pamphlets could fall under that.

"Gay people are child molesters" would be slander, I think.

edited 12th May '13 11:10:08 AM by Haldo

I would find it somewhat amusing if the LGBT community decided to sue the church for defamation.

In the US it does. We don't really have slander and libel laws.

edited 12th May '13 11:21:38 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

Yeah, I was wondering about this. Why is this legislation necessary? Don't the slander laws suffice?

The differences is you can't slander a social group, only specific organisation or individuals. whicn is why these laws are necessary apparently.

edited 12th May '13 3:05:06 PM by joeyjojo

And do they apply only against homosexuals or any group being slandered?

Organizations, not just any group, I guess.

honestly, I don't really like hate speech laws in general. You should be able to say what ever the heck you what, how ever stupid or bigoted it might be. I know that's harsh and a bit problematic but I don't like the government telling me what I can and can't say, slippery slopes and all that.

Also, you can't shoot a child molester (well you could but not for being a child molester.)(in the states at least.) Usually to use lethal force you or someone else has to be in serious harm ("serious harm" meaning someone is about to die or be permanently disfigured.) Would ev' thought someone from Alabama would know that.

[:EDIT:] wow the comments on that site are depressing.

edited 12th May '13 6:05:11 PM by lonesomepaire

Yeah, I really say I'm a fan of the court having the power to tell someone to stop being a twat. Too close to the slippery slope for me. The moment you can tell someone their dissent isn't constructive enough to be tolerated, however twattish and wrong, you have a legal precedent to throw pretty much anything in that box.