The point is the hate crimes law was applied to the Christians, and no attempt at any prosecution appears to be forthcoming for the gays.
Did you actually read my post at all? The point is that the law was applied to people who happened to be Christians, not because they were Christians, but because they were doing something wrong. Or do you believe that Christians are exempt from some laws?
To the best of my knowledge, the gay activists did not disobey the police. The christian protesters did. The christian protesters were taken to jail and charged with crimes--charged, not by the gay people whose parade they crashed, but by the state. If the church wanted to sue the gay demonstrators, that's up to them.
Both groups were doing the exact same thing. The difference is that one accepted police authority and one didn't. Guess which one got charged? Couldn't be any coincidence to that at all, could there?
Again with the insistance that anyone who still sees sexual perversion as sexual perversion is in actuality doing something spiteful against gays.
Actually, gays don't care whether you see them as sexualy perverse or not. It's not spiteful to find something detestable. I happen to get hives when I go into a church. My brother hates mushrooms with a passion. My mother thinks violent video games are horrible and wrong. Thinking something is bad isn't spiteful. Now, if I were to constantly try to get churches closed to due to obscure zoning laws, or my brother tried to convince the FDA that mushrooms are dangerous drugs that no one should ever eat, or my mother declared that no one should be allowed to play violent games or even make them--those would all be spiteful, useless, stupid things to do.
If you see sexual perversion as sexual perversion, lovely. Go on seeing it that way. But let the people who see sexual perversion as something fun and interesting to try between consenting adults do what they want. I guarantee they wouldn't bother you if you didn't bother them.
Notice how it has grown from gays, to gays and bisexuals, to gays and bisexuals and transexuals and any other perverse sexual behavior that can be bundled together without outright revolt ensuing amongst the general population.
Gone from gays to bisexuals? And then to transexuals? You are working on a very odd timeline. Likely none at all.
Pederasty was even included briefly before it became evident that that was going a bit too far, NAMBLA being a prime example of an organization the socialists ejected when they realized it was not going to fly. There are still intellectuals who claim there is nothing wrong with it.
Show me
one. An intellectual, mind, not just some random bloke.
Refutation and denying simple facts are not the same thing. The facts are that the Christians were originally charged with hate crimes, and this only changed after it became evident that they could not expect any public support for it at that time, and lacked the political clout to ram it through anyhow.
Well, you asked for refutin', and you got refutin'. Love how you're twisting the facts. The protesters were not 'originally' charged with hate crimes, that was added afterwards by one judge and then dropped, and let's be honest here: you don't know why it was dropped. You can say it was because of lack of public support, lack of political clout, but you don't know that. Shame it didn't stick for your sake though--it would make your constant referral to it actually, you know, mean something. Being charged with something is not the same as being convicted of it--if there is a possibility that a crime has ocurred, then the general course of action is to charge the person and then through the court system determine whether or not that charge is true. Innocent until proven guilty applies to hate crimes too.
As it was, they dropped the charge. The fact that they were charged at all does not mean that they were attacked, merely that there was a possibility they had violated a law. It was investigated, decided as false for whatever reason, and dismissed.
For this, you cry foul?
You're just really, really bored too, right? I mean, that's the only logical explanation...
You know full well that discussion of this subject is forbidden here. Are you inviting me to break CF rules? All I can say to your assertion is that the Bible does not affirm any such blanket statement.
Interesting, your bible quote says one shall not eat with the fornicator etc. Not that one shall not call him brother any more. Love the sinner, hate the sin anyone?
A supporter of gay rights who also supports animated kiddy inappropriate content. I am supposed to be overcome with the wrongheadedness of my concern now?
I am hardly a 'supporter' of animated kiddy inappropriate content. I am a supporter of free speech, even speech I find distasteful and unpleasant. I support someone's right to draw or write what they want, and someone else's right to read it if they want to. Doesn't matter what it is.
Matter of fact, I believe that if the christian protesters had obeyed the laws and not blocked vendors and such, they should have been able to protest as loudly as they could. Good for them, they had opinions and they shared them. Naturally, they also could not stop the opinions of the whistle blowers and angel holders either. It's all good.
In any event, the point is that political speech is being interefered with by using supposed civil rights arguments concerning gay marriage and also by the use of "hate crimes" legislation while inappropriate content is being proliferated under "freedom of speech". You ably demonstrate that the irony of this is lost on those who want to destroy Christianity.
I demonstrate nothing of the sort, since I do not want to destroy Christianity. I think the world would be a pleasanter place if organized religion of any sort did not exist, but I'm not trying to take it down since I know that many people seem to enjoy it.
The irony that you're comparing two completely unrelated topics with complete seriousness, however, is not lost on me at all. I find it delicious.
It does not surprise me that many deny this accusation. I still maintain that it is largely true.
Sadly, that does not surprise me either.
Nothing is ever absolute, except the fact that nothing is ever absolute, other than the times when something does indeed to turn out to be absolute.
Read this again, slowly. One of us has to be on something.
It's all a lot of words and going around in circles.
Just like that thing with the absoluteness. I sort of see what you're saying, but it's an odd thing to say about your own post.
The clear agenda is there for anyone with eyes open to see.
Yes, and as many have pointed out, the agenda is to be treated fairly by the laws of the secular country we are all citizens of and be allowed to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in peace and normalcy.
Very sinister.
