LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Hate to break this to you, buddy, but the government already limits what you can and can't say. You can't encite panic or violence. You can't threaten to kill people. You can't present false testimony in court. And if you get pulled over by a cop, I wouldn't recommend telling him to go fuck himself when he asks to see your license and registration.

Actually you can shoot someone you think is a child molester, and end up in prison for murder. The point is if the killer says he did it because so-and-so's flyer told him that gay people are child molesters, I don't think the guy who made the flyer should get to walk away without any consequences. And in Canada at least, he doesn't.

Edit: For the love of Luna don't get me started on    Alabama   .

edited 12th May '13 6:20:43 PM by Morgikit

1 is a case that causes immediate direct physical harm. 2 is a threat of said that warrants serious immediate investigation and in the best case wastes resources of law enforcement. 3 is specific to courts where they're conducting an investigation into an offense that has already concretely happened. IIRC 4 isn't actually illegal, just highly inadvisable — the offense is not showing your license and registration.

While hate speech is definitely connected to extremism and violence, there's basically no nice way to handle it with legal force that doesn't carry the risk of precedenting a serious encroachment on general life, because there's no way to define it in a box that someone in power can't twist anything they don't like to fit.

edited 12th May '13 6:31:18 PM by Pykrete

The best way to fight speech is with speech. I'd like the punishment for hate speech to be some status of open shaming - you are no longer protected by libel, slander, or defamation laws. Possibly the removal of protection by other laws regarding communication and fraud. You lie about homosexuals, people are allowed to lie to you about stuff like the content of contracts.

What's that? You want honest communication in good faith? Then don't talk so much bullshit after your sentence is up.

edited 12th May '13 7:02:12 PM by RadicalTaoist

I believe there was a suit brought against a white supremacist in Illinois by the Center for Constitutional Rights against white supremacist Matthew Hale, Anderson v Hale, which examined the question of whether one can be liable in tort for the deaths of others prompted by ones own rhetoric, although sadly it was settled out of court.

On an unrelated but trivial note, Glenn Greenwald was counsel for Hale, and called the plaintiffs "odious and repugnant", and then was rapped for unethical practice by the judge.

edited 12th May '13 7:03:43 PM by Achaemenid

Pykrete just ninja'd me,so yeah what he said.

Sorry,I misunderstood you on the shooting thing, I thought you ment simi-legally. I don't no If I'd want the guy handing out pamphlets charged. He was a bigot but he didn't kill anybody, gave a crazy murder a target. If someone is killing a gay person because he thought he was a child molester, he'd probably kill a real child molester. Though, I'll admit there might be some situation where I might want him charged, that's not the point of these laws. The point was that you can't wave rude banners around,or hand out pamphlets that someone might get offended by.

edited 13th May '13 5:42:16 AM by lonesomepaire

If statements in question found to be slanderous or inciting violence towards a particular organisation or individual where there is direct and provable harm then would be the relevant. But the charges were (apparently) simply that it was 'hate speech'. Which is a lot more a nebulous legal concept.

Regardless the fact government polices freedom of speech in particular scenarios should not in and of itself be considered legal or moral justification for the widering of its powers.

edited 13th May '13 1:05:20 AM by joeyjojo

And to being the issue a little closer to this thread's reason for being: in theory, there seems to be no reason that a court like the current Canadian example couldn't decree that a religion's established DOGMAS amount to destructive speech, with the indirect potential to harm someone. I have heard actual, solemn (I won't use the word "serious") arguments that orthodox Catholic doctrine—as codified in the Catechism—is fully as harmful to individuals and their lives as the now-proscribed flyers of Tinfoil Boy from the news report.

This recent case suggests that, even if the former is legal in Canada and the latter banned, it's only the discretion of particular Canadian judges and the prevailing winds of moral/intellectual fashion that keep the former from being outlawed—banning the Catechism and punishing its drafters and publishers isn't inherently off the table now. Or is there something in Canadian law that makes this inference faulty?

edited 13th May '13 7:17:32 AM by Jhimmibhob

If the boot fits...

Have you considered that maybe it is harmful to people and doesn't deserve special protection because it's popular?

Yes, and found it irrelevant. Even if it did result in harm to people in some indirect or non-imminent fashion, that's not enough reason to proscribe it. Unless it meets the exceedingly narrow "clear and present danger" criteria of law, you get to say and publish it. If some sub-normal battens onto something you say, and interprets it as license to kill someone the next day, you can send flowers if you feel bad—but it's not your legal problem. This goes both for individuals and for churches.

edited 13th May '13 9:15:00 AM by Jhimmibhob

Think of it this way: It's legal to buy and read Mein Kampf, but you would probably get in trouble if you wrote some of the quotes from it on signs and wandered round the street.

Oh, almost certainly. Not with the police, however.

Depending on the particular policeman, that's de facto possible. However, Elfive's example doesn't really match the law's de jure standards.

edited 13th May '13 2:08:21 PM by Jhimmibhob

Yes, with the police for disturbing the peace.

Not any more than manifesting for anything else.

Michele Bachman declares "spiritual warfare" on same-sex marriage (and other stuff not relevant to this thread).

Real world spiritual warfare is kind of boring. Too much prayer and fasting, not enough shooting demons with blessed bullets and staking sparkly vampires.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

I'm just imagining her attempting to pray a gay person to death.

edited 14th May '13 7:07:02 AM by Midgetsnowman

For some reason, I'm envisioning a mod for DOOM II with all the monsters and the Icon of Sin replaced with Michelle Bachmann.

God if praying is literally the best tactic the anti gay marriage side can come up with, no wonder marriage equality is winning.

Well, they could try guns and bombs but for some strange reason murdering people you hate is called a hate crime and includes jail time.

Not to mention sounds suspiciously similar to the Muslim Jihads she fearmongers about so much.

edited 14th May '13 7:19:13 AM by Midgetsnowman

Murder isn't just a hate crime but. its, you know, a crime crime.

This is true.

Either way, yeah, pretty much her only options here is prayer to god to hurt people she doesnt like, fasting for the same effect, or organizing rallies to tell gay people how much she hates them.

Somehow that doesnt sound very christian to me.

Perhaps we should be glad to she's keep this to a 'spiritual' battle.

Say what you what about Jihadists. They're certain pro-active about achieving their poltical goals. Hopefully we won't see that happening.

edited 14th May '13 7:29:58 AM by joeyjojo

That crazy lady got nothing on our local crusader, Priest Natanek, who claims that he is able to command whole legions of fallen Polish soldiers. But he focuses rather on fighting against Harry Potter, with gay marriage as secondary priority.

I know should be worried about this individual, but that guy sounds awesome

I'd be more glad if she didn't have millions of people on her side. Some of which are very fond of guns...

edited 14th May '13 7:32:12 AM by Morgikit