19 comments

• 

  Stephen Black

  1 year ago

  AMEN! Well said Randy! I just posted several other news headlines. We need to WAKE UP in the CHURCH! It is happening here in the USA already!
  
  FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER FIRE!
  The Rioting Lesbians at Smith College shut down free speech at a Republican Student Organizational Meeting with NO penalty. The police did nothing. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE....
  
  FREEDOM OF CHRISTIAN CONVICTIONS UNDER ATTACK!
  Elane Photography was fined $6,637.94 by New Mexico when a human rights complaint was filed because Elane Photography did not want to be the photographer at a lesbian civil union (which isn't even legal in New Mexico!) because of their personal moral Christian convictions. http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressre...
  
  
  Ocean Grove Camp Meeting / Methodist Church in New Jersey are in a legal battle over a lesbian couple filing discrimination. The church organization would not allow the couple to have their gay wedding in the church's private beach pavilion. This case is still pending. http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.a...
  
  
  We are certainly living in interesting times!
  
  God bless brother!
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  It is very interesting times. One of the things I am trying to learn how to do is how to "wake up" the church without being shrill. We have a wall of sound coming at us and most of it is shrill (from all sides.) I want to be strong and compelling, not afraid of speaking my opinion with grace and truth but somehow move past the ineffective machinations of old culture war tactics.
  
  Don't know that I have found that balance but I keep searching.
  
  Thanks for the compliment and I love the ADF. There are some really cool people involved in that organization.
  reply
• 

  Mike

  1 year ago

  Stephen, I watched the video of the lesbian student protestors--that's really sad. It seems to me, though, that they're working against their own viewpoint. If someone is truly secure in the rightness and truth of what they believe, they would only shout if that was all they could do to be heard.
  
  These girls' behavior is not that of truth-tellers, but of oppressors. And goodness knows, it isn't as though a gay-affirming viewpoint would have no outlet to be heard--especially on a university campus.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  very good points Mike.
  reply
• 

  Brady

  1 year ago

  Hi Randy,
  
  I guess my two points would be that the case your referring to is in Canada, a country that does not have nearly the legal free speech protections that we have here in the US. This type of thing could never happen in the US (well, if it did, I have to believe that it would be corrected).
  
  As for the photographer case--this was a state issue of discrimination, not a violation of freedom of speech. The state decided the photographer was providing a public service and, because she was, she could not discriminate who she gives her services to. She was free to publish all the anti-gay stuff she wanted, if that was her desire. She also would have been similarly punished had she refused a Christian wedding.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  Hi Brady,
  
  Freedom of speech is freedom of speech regardless of the country. Canada prides itself on tolerance and diversity ... unless of course you are politically incorrect. Then they will take all your money and mandate a lifetime of silence.
  
  It could totally happen here. Already, anyone who disagrees with gay worldview and its accompanying ideology is stigmatized as a bigoted homophobe. The silencing of opposition here has started and will continue to follow the way of Europe and Canada.
  
  Unless people like us heed the warning bells instead of dismissing them. Gay "rights" is one thing...taking them at the expense of religious liberty, freedom of speech and conscience has no precedent and should not occur.
  
  And, I don't know a photographer who doesn't consider themselves an artist. It's ridiculous to say that a photographer is a public service. Public service has to do with food, shelter, safety and healthcare ... or anything that is taxpayer funded. A private photographer is none of that. No one has a fundamental right to be photographed.
  
  We both know that she or even if a gay identified person refusing to photograph a Christian wedding would *never* get this type of punishment. And even if what you say is true ... a gay identified person should *never* be forced to photograph something that violates their conscience... right? An unjust law, or public policy, applied across the board to limit freedom is still an unjust law.
  
  This photographer was not anti-gay and not attempting to be. She was professional and honest. She didn't preach at, try to disrupt or even stop the lesbian couple. She simply said no. My guess is because she couldn't visually document a homosexual covenant before God with a clear conscience.
  
  It probably pained her to say no. To stigmatize her as "anti-gay" is to ignore where true hatred and intolerance exists. People who can't handle being offended and taking revenge in a way like this are the ones showing hatred and intolerance of alternative views contrary to their own.
  
  That's my opinion at least.
  reply
• 

  Stephen Black

  1 year ago

  Mike... very true. You know and I know those girls were most-likely beat up emotionally as precious little ones... never knowing the love of father and mother being their little princess! It is heart-breaking. Yet, there is a need to hold people accountable as adults for their actions. Unfortunately when there is the "ACT-UP" it seems those in authority are stifled to do anything about it for fear of retribution or being labeled as homophobic or bigoted. How to get past this fear is certainly needed in the Church, in educational authority and civil authorities.
  
  Brandy... I think it might be a little naive to think that freedom of speech oppression cannot happen here in the USA, especially Christian Free Speech... it is happening already.
  reply
• 

  Jay

  1 year ago

  I'm a bit of a minarchist when it comes to government intervention, so I think most of my views on free speech and hate crimes legislation are more extreme than the average conservative. I really do have more of an "anything goes" policy when it comes to these sort of things.
  
  At the same time, I am curious. Religious practice has been a protected class for ages in the US (one could say since the founding), and I have yet to see any ministers (of any religion) fined for speaking out against Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, or even Christianity. If it hasn't happened in America for religion (which is obviously something ministers speak of more often), why would it happen in America for sexual orientation? Brady's right in that America and Canada ARE different countries with different founding principles.
  
  Also, Gay Patriot wrote a great article about this, as well as the controversy in Ireland over the Iris Robinson debacle (and what she said was truly hideous, but I agree that she had a right to say it).
  
  http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/06/10/canadian-p...
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  Hi Jay. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
  
  @Stephen ... you called Brady "Brandy." As wonderful a guy Brady is... he and I are not dating (think Brangelina) 1) because he is taken and 2) I am not gay anymore :). Plus, I am not always sure he even likes me ::: laugh :::
  
  I am sorry, I have had a pretty difficult day and I just need to be flippant about something and pick on a couple of friends. :)
  reply
• 

  Zoe Brain

  1 year ago

  I think the Canadian "Human Rights" (scare quotes intended) commission has done as much to harm the Gay Rights lobby by this stupid, insane and hateful action as Fred Phelps has done to the anti-Gay lobby.
  Apart from that though, it's just plain wrong, no matter what the issues under consideration are.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  wow Zoe. That's quite a statement. I am not sure I am drawing the exact parallel you are so, if you have time, I would love to hear you explain that a little further.
  
  Example, I don't think False Prophet Fred Phelps causes the same type of effect because his only power is to offend and he stigmatizes himself. The HRC of Canada can make you pay through the nose and legally demand silence. I think you have something there but I don't want to just keep guessing as to what it is.
  
  Thank you for adding your thoughts.
  reply
• 

  Stephen Black

  1 year ago

  LOL! Sorry Brady! I guess I know to many Brandy(s) or Brandi(s), and then there is Randys... And... Randy you are hilarious! So BRADY... so sorry :-/ please forgive me! :-)
  reply
• 

  Brady

  1 year ago

  Stephen- you're forgiven, although like Randy, I was also a bit thrown off ;-)
  
  Randy- at your "Brandy" response--hilarious! And don't worry, I like you (you know in a friendly, good-spirited-debate kind of way).
  
  At your response to my post (and to Stephen too)- I agree with you that freedom of speech is freedome of speech no matter what country it's in. But, my point was that Canada simply does not have the Freedom of Speech protection that the US has. It never has. We wouldn't say that since Iran is an Islamic govt where they often persecute Christians that this means the US could possibly go that way. Sure its not the same, but my point is that the countries are simply different with different laws. This type of thing has always been a possibility in Canada because of how their laws are set up, which is why the US is so great--because we have better protections than that
  
  As for the photographer- I wouldn't claim she's a public servant, but she's providing a service to the public. Much like a restaurant can't turn away a black person or a gay person (in some states), or a Christian, this woman cannot turn someone away for a protected reason, either. I'm not sure what the answer for someone like her is in that situation, other than to tell the couple she will do it, but she'd recommend they use another service because she does not agree with gay marriages, and let them go elsewhere. Although, I simply think her reasoning is faulty in the first place since I don't recall the bible saying that one can't take pictures at a gay wedding, and because I'd be willing to bet she does 2nd marriages after divorces (but obviously that's an aside and doesn't affect the law itself, which doesn't exist in my state, or most states, for the record).
  
  As for this type of case not coming up if the person were Christian--I disagree. I think it's very possible. I've seen some anti-Christian school T-shirt cases get some decent press over the last year or 2.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  Well, I already said my two cents and I am glad you were "thrown off." I want to keep the mix up.
  
  I am also very glad that you like me ... that you really really like me!
  
  In the friendly, good spirited, debate kind of way :)
  reply
• 

  B.T.Carolus

  1 year ago

  I have been feeling pretty unwell on and off for the last month or so, but I think I'm probably ready to try a full-sized, intellectually tiring comment again. Of course I'm probably invoking some form of Godwin's Law while I do it, but, here goes.
  
  I think that Brady is on the right track as far the concept of different countries, different laws. In Europe and Canada, for example, holocaust deniers and Nazi sympathisers have actually been fined or thrown in jail (or at least brought up on charges) simply for saying something that was considered hate speech or some other type of bad thing by those governments. There are the same types of people doing the same types of thing here in America, but none of them have ever been brought up on charges for it. That is because we have a strong tradition behind our first amendment, and we would rather allow people the right to say whatever they want (unless it is going to cause physical harm to someone or is considered obscene, see the restrictions against swearing in public (eg FCC regulations), yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, and 'inciting to violence' ie, using speech in order to call for the physical harming of a person) than put restrictions on free speech, because we realize that sometimes the majority opinion can be wrong, and that the government would be dangerous if it could restrict speech.
  
  What happens in America where egregious speech is concerned, is that the public at large tends to self censor. If you think about the neo-Nazi movement in America, it is a very fringe group that is not taken seriously by anyone. They aren't ever asked to come onto a news program or published in reputable newspapers, unless there is some very particular reason for allowing it, like they are planning to march through a town that is populated mainly by elderly jews. Or think about the general reputation of Fred Phelps. Nobody takes him or anything he says or does seriously because it is completely inappropriate and wrong. Both the neo-Nazis and Phelps have the right to say and do whatever they want. But they are completely marginalized.
  
  I think that it is much more likely, should gay marriage become completely legalized, that anyone speaking out against it would simply be stigmatized and ignored or laughed at by the public, simply because I don't think anyone could actually get a state legislature to pass a law saying that it is illegal to protest/speak against/etc. a specific thing. That is too obviously against the spirit of the first amendment. However, I do think it is concievable that we could have speech restrictions gotten through the back door via hate-crimes laws, which essentially function as anti-thought crime laws. These basically have been passed because legislators are too worried about the ugly PC implications of not supporting punishment for racists, coupled with the fact that their speech violations are implicit, rather than explicit, because the previously passed bills seem to apply to actions.
  reply
• 

  Sarah

  1 year ago

  @Ellie -
  
  I just had this convo with a friend about the history of African-American people and The Holocaust as well as the issues surrounding North American First Nations people of which I am a decendant of.
  
  He denied the what happened to the First Nations People. Ok, so I got a little mad but then pointed out something.
  
  To say what happened to Aboriginal People didn't happen is like saying the holocaust didn't happen. And then I said, the church and government in Canada are taking steps forward in repentance and making ammendments. And there is
  reconciliation happening between everyone involved.
  
  As a Canadian I think the majority of Canadians really don't understand that we Canadians have little ability to share our thoughts, our convictions and only a few people in the church's are working extremely hard to preserve our freedom of speech which is nearly taken away for good. People need to become more active in our political arena. I think one day Christians in Canada could wake up one morning and ask the question...what happened to our freedom?
  
  Anyways, brovo to American's for continueing to fight for your freedom of speech!
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  @Ellie -
  Excellent Ellie. I like your estimation and agree. We do have a long history of self-censoring but the populace seems ever more eager to allow the government to become more heavy handed. Not just the thought/hate crimes thing but Pelosi is doing everything she can to bring the "Fairness" doctrine back. Again, excellent summation and insight.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  @Sarah -
  I sure hope that doesn't happen for Canadian Christians. There seems to be enough of a bruhaha that perhaps they are challenging the state in a manner that will preserve current freedoms and gain back any that might be considered lost ground.
  reply
• 

  Stephen Black

  1 year ago

  Yes Ellie... I agree. We absolutely must be involved. Jesus desires for us to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world in HIS Spirit.
  
  I think it should be interesting to see what does happen with the Boissoin case in Alberta. It seems like there could potentially be a huge pouring out of support. I have notice that there are a lot of angry Canadians over this case. They are expecting a huge turn out when the final ruling comes down in October. I have some very close friends in Canada and they are outraged!
  
  We must pray, and act wisely... gentle and wise! God help us all be so filled with YOUR wisdom as to act appropriately and timely in Jesus Name!
  reply