Free speech falls prey to 'human rights'

[Natoma]

Thank God we can have yet another thread on the merits/demerits of being gay.

Seems to be the talk of the town these days don't it?

 

[Sabastian]

Ok Sabastian, lets forget race for a moment ... lets equate it to laws against religious discrimination

There is no equivalence there ether.

 

[Natoma]

To be sure there is no proof that sexuality of all kind does not stem from biological sources. In fact evidence leans to the opposite conclusion.

However, if you are not one to subscribe to that line of thought and you believe that sexuality is a choice, then how could there be no equivalence to religious matters? Religion is all about choice and the environment you grew up in. Sounds like a fair equivalence to me by MfA.

 

[Sabastian]

To be sure there is no proof that sexuality of all kind does not stem from biological sources. In fact evidence leans to the opposite conclusion.

What evidence? Where is the gay gene?

However, if you are not one to subscribe to that line of thought and you believe that sexuality is a choice, then how could there be no equivalence to religious matters? Religion is all about choice and the environment you grew up in. Sounds like a fair equivalence to me by MfA.

God and the search for whatever it is has little in common with society putting a gag order on itself (by force) so that none may make negative opinions with regards to homosexuality, only positive ones are permitted.

[A funny] Enter the homosexual.... A red flashing light comes on saying "you must applaud or be charged with discrimination against humanity".[/A funny]

 

[Humus]

As long as people didn't choose to become a homosexual there's no reason why it should be treated any different than other non-choice attributes such as color of the skin.

 

[Natoma]

To be sure there is no proof that sexuality of all kind does not stem from biological sources. In fact evidence leans to the opposite conclusion.

What evidance? Where is the gay gene?

We've been through this before. There is no gay gene anymore than there is a straight gene. We simply have genes that encode our sexuality, which is then expressed mostly during puberty through the release of hormones and endorphins which alter our physicality, mentality, and emotional state tremendously. The genes that control our sexuality express themselves in that manner, and in the end are seen through the human sexual arousal response lens.

However, if you are not one to subscribe to that line of thought and you believe that sexuality is a choice, then how could there be no equivalence to religious matters? Religion is all about choice and the environment you grew up in. Sounds like a fair equivalence to me by MfA.

God and the search for whatever it is has little in common with society putting a gag order on itself (by force) so that none may make negative opinions with regards to homosexuality, only positive ones are permitted.

So there are no penalties against religious defamation in our society? Go out in public and make a defamatory statement regarding Muslims or Jews or Christians or any other religious group and see if you keep your job.

 

[Sabastian]

As long as people didn't choose to become a homosexual there's no reason why it should be treated any different than other non-choice attributes such as color of the skin.

With that argument the necrophilia, pedophilia, bestiality, stiletto shoes or what ever else turns your crank can be classified as something they never chose to be excited by.

But lets not turn away from the freedom of speech debate, ok.

 

[Sabastian]

So there are no penalties against religious defamation in our society? Go out in public and make a defamatory statement regarding Muslims or Jews or Christians or any other religious group and see if you keep your job.

There is a constant berating of religious people and there beliefs but I see very little in the way of charges against people who perpetrate them. I think that there are lots of infringements on religious people of all types, everyday, every hour even every minute. You do not get fired for saying you do not like Christianity or Christians for that matter.

 

[Natoma]

So there are no penalties against religious defamation in our society? Go out in public and make a defamatory statement regarding Muslims or Jews or Christians or any other religious group and see if you keep your job.

There is a constant berating of religious people and there beliefs but I see very little in the way of charges against people who perpetrate them. I think that there are lots of infringements on religious people of all types, everyday, every hour even every minute. You do not get fired for saying you do not like Christianity or Christians for that matter.

Who said anything about charges? No, you can't be prosecuted for saying what you wish, unless someone brings a libel suit against you or a defamation suit.

In that same vein, employers can certainly fire you for defamatory comments against religious groups, racial groups, etc. In fact it is in the employee handbooks of many of the largest corporations such as IBM, which my brother happens to work for. If you state that you believe Islam is a wrong religion, you can be fired. If you state that you believe Judaism is evil, you can be fired. Etc etc etc.

Maybe it's different in Canada where you live, but in the US it happens all the time.

 

[RussSchultz]

As long as that behavior does not happen at work, you cannot be fired. At least not without having your employer open themselves up for a lawsuit.

 

[Sabastian]

Who said anything about charges? No, you can't be prosecuted for saying what you wish, unless someone brings a libel suit against you or a defamation suit.

In that same vein, employers can certainly fire you for defamatory comments against religious groups, racial groups, etc. In fact it is in the employee handbooks of many of the largest corporations such as IBM, which my brother happens to work for. If you state that you believe Islam is a wrong religion, you can be fired. If you state that you believe Judaism is evil, you can be fired. Etc etc etc.

Maybe it's different in Canada where you live, but in the US it happens all the time.

There is no equivalent between religious convictions (search for God or what ever it is.) and homosexuals behavior. It is like comparing stars with raisins, for Christ's sake.

When was the last time a professor or teacher was ever fired for making a statement (not even in the classroom mind you.) that "Christianity should not be applauded". I will tell you I have never heard of such a ridiculous thing.

Regardless freedom of speech ought to be upheld despite some who are offended. If I am asked if I approve of homosexuality by my employer or co worker I should be allowed to give a negative response. If they have a pro-homosexual day I ought to be able to denounce it, openly as a fundamental right to express my opinion without fear of losing my employment. Same goes with Christianity, when Christmas roles around I ought to be able to curse Christians (and they do.) and their dense rituals. Bah humbug! (BTW I really like Christmas and some of the most decent people I know are Christians but just for the sake of argument…)

 

[Natoma]

Who said anything about charges? No, you can't be prosecuted for saying what you wish, unless someone brings a libel suit against you or a defamation suit.

In that same vein, employers can certainly fire you for defamatory comments against religious groups, racial groups, etc. In fact it is in the employee handbooks of many of the largest corporations such as IBM, which my brother happens to work for. If you state that you believe Islam is a wrong religion, you can be fired. If you state that you believe Judaism is evil, you can be fired. Etc etc etc.

Maybe it's different in Canada where you live, but in the US it happens all the time.

There is no equivalent between religious convictions (search for God or what ever it is.) and homosexuals behavior. It is like comparing stars with raisins, for Christ's sake.

But religion is a choice at the very least, and a by-product of your environment at the most. If homosexuality is a choice, or it's a by-product of one's environment, how is it any different?

When was the last time a professor or teacher was ever fired for making a statement (not even in the classroom mind you.) that "Christianity should not be applauded". I will tell you I have never heard of such a ridiculous thing.

I've read about situations such as that, which is why I brought it up. Though it's usually been comments against jews and muslims.

Regardless freedom of speech ought to be upheld despite some who are offended. If I am asked if I approve of homosexuality by my employer or co worker I should be allowed to give a negative response. If they have a pro-homosexual day I ought to be able to denounce it, openly as a fundamental right to express my opinion without fear of losing my employment. Same goes with Christianity, when Christmas roles around I ought to be able to curse Christians (and they do.) and their dense rituals. Bah humbug!

Never said you shouldn't have a right to express your opinion without fear of losing your job. Just saying that many companies have rules that state that defamatory language will not be tolerated. Some companies extend only to the workplace. Others go beyond it.

To be sure this will probably be fought in court, and the dismissed teacher will probably end up winning.

Here's an example I dug up btw on the opposite end of the spectrum.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/feb/03022504.html

A pro-abortion woman who was fired from her post as a teacher at a private Catholic school after her support for abortion was mentioned in a newspaper ad celebrating Roe v Wade, has launched a discrimination complaint.

(BTW I really like Christmas and some of the most decent people I know are Christians but just for the sake of argument…)

Now that's funny.

 

[MfA]

Natoma, only the wrong religions of course

 

[Sabastian]

There is no equivalent between religious convictions (search for God or what ever it is.) and homosexuals behavior. It is like comparing stars with raisins, for Christ's sake.

But religion is a choice at the very least, and a by-product of your environment at the most. If homosexuality is a choice, or it's a by-product of one's environment, how is it any different?

The search for God has nothing to do with impeding freedom of speech, end of story. It is not one bit the equivalent in choice.

When was the last time a professor or teacher was ever fired for making a statement (not even in the classroom mind you.) that "Christianity should not be applauded". I will tell you I have never heard of such a ridiculous thing.

I've read about situations such as that, which is why I brought it up. Though it's usually been comments against jews and muslims.

They lost their jobs? Please find a link I would be interested in such an article. Interesting no one lost their job for discrediting Christianity. Looks like a minority rights infringement on freedom of speech. RE:"Multiculturalism"

Regardless freedom of speech ought to be upheld despite some who are offended. If I am asked if I approve of homosexuality by my employer or co worker I should be allowed to give a negative response. If they have a pro-homosexual day I ought to be able to denounce it, openly as a fundamental right to express my opinion without fear of losing my employment. Same goes with Christianity, when Christmas roles around I ought to be able to curse Christians (and they do.) and their dense rituals. Bah humbug!

Never said you shouldn't have a right to express your opinion without fear of losing your job. Just saying that many companies have rules that state that defamatory language will not be tolerated. Some companies extend only to the workplace. Others go beyond it.

To be sure this will probably be fought in court, and the dismissed teacher will probably end up winning.

These company rules are an extension of the courtrooms ruling on human rights. They know based on precedent cases that if they are sued by someone whom was offended they will lose. It isn't as if they all agree but rather they know what the results of such an incident would be in the court room.

Here's an example I dug up btw on the opposite end of the spectrum.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/feb/03022504.html

A pro-abortion woman who was fired from her post as a teacher at a private Catholic school after her support for abortion was mentioned in a newspaper ad celebrating Roe v Wade, has launched a discrimination complaint.

lol, imagine a Conservative Christian applying at a liberal arts university to teach feminism with a patriarchal twist. Anyhow I am shocked, I went to a Catholic University and was surrounded by the most lefty left lefties(even was one myself) you can imagine. Imagine the outrage amongst the left wing sociology department if they had some professor who was not a welfare advocate. (Supposedly there are some out there, just not too many.) However it is a Catholic private school where Catholics send their own children to be educated but I do not agree with their action. It still is not the same as saying something as benign as homosexuality is "not something to be applauded". Abortion (often condsidered as murder.) is an even more sensitive issue then homosexuality.

(BTW I really like Christmas and some of the most decent people I know are Christians but just for the sake of argument…)

Now that's funny.

 

[Natoma]

Natoma, only the wrong religions of course

Indeed.

 

[MfA]

Sabastian, that wasnt all he said on the topic obviously. Would have been a short letter.

 

[Natoma]

There is no equivalent between religious convictions (search for God or what ever it is.) and homosexuals behavior. It is like comparing stars with raisins, for Christ's sake.

But religion is a choice at the very least, and a by-product of your environment at the most. If homosexuality is a choice, or it's a by-product of one's environment, how is it any different?

The search for God has nothing to do with impeding freedom of speech, end of story. It is not one bit the equivalent in choice.

You should talk to the mormons then. Their form of marriage (polygamy) was outlawed in the late 19th century due to the puritanical majority not thinking it was right. Their freedom of religion was impeded. But that's just trivia more than anything else.

And you keep saying that religion and sexuality are not equivalent in any way choice wise, but have shown in no way that they aren't equivalent. While I do not believe they are equivalent, it is for different reasons. You can't change your sexuality. You can most certainly change your religious beliefs.

When was the last time a professor or teacher was ever fired for making a statement (not even in the classroom mind you.) that "Christianity should not be applauded". I will tell you I have never heard of such a ridiculous thing.

I've read about situations such as that, which is why I brought it up. Though it's usually been comments against jews and muslims.

They lost their jobs? Please find a link I would be interested in such an article. Interesting no one lost their job for discrediting Christianity. Looks like a minority rights infringement on freedom of speech. RE:"Multiculturalism"

I've never heard anyone make a comment disparaging christians in the US. Muslims and Jew defamation however comes a dime a dozen. And yes, people have lost their jobs over that kind of anti-religion speak.

Regardless freedom of speech ought to be upheld despite some who are offended. If I am asked if I approve of homosexuality by my employer or co worker I should be allowed to give a negative response. If they have a pro-homosexual day I ought to be able to denounce it, openly as a fundamental right to express my opinion without fear of losing my employment. Same goes with Christianity, when Christmas roles around I ought to be able to curse Christians (and they do.) and their dense rituals. Bah humbug!

Never said you shouldn't have a right to express your opinion without fear of losing your job. Just saying that many companies have rules that state that defamatory language will not be tolerated. Some companies extend only to the workplace. Others go beyond it.

To be sure this will probably be fought in court, and the dismissed teacher will probably end up winning.

These company rules are an extension of the courtrooms ruling on human rights. They know based on precedent cases that if they are sued by someone whom was offended they will lose. It isn't as if they all agree but rather they know what the results of such an incident would be in the court room.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here.

Here's an example I dug up btw on the opposite end of the spectrum.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/feb/03022504.html

A pro-abortion woman who was fired from her post as a teacher at a private Catholic school after her support for abortion was mentioned in a newspaper ad celebrating Roe v Wade, has launched a discrimination complaint.

lol, imagine a Conservative Christian applying at a liberal arts university to teach feminism with a patriarchal twist. Anyhow I am shocked, I went to a Catholic University and was surrounded by the most lefty left lefties(even was one myself) you can imagine. Imagine the outrage amongst the left wing sociology department if they had some professor who was not a welfare advocate. (Supposedly there are some out there, just not too many.) However it is a Catholic private school where Catholics send their own children to be educated but I do not agree with their action. It still is not the same as saying something as benign as homosexuality is "not something to be applauded".

Are you sure that's all that was said in the newspaper? Is there any evidence to the pro or con that show that this person didn't have a vocal outlook on homosexuality in and around his school and neighborhood?

Before you say it was benign, maybe the full story should be known? Why should a woman saying she agrees with abortion in a newspaper be any different than someone saying they disagree with homosexuality in a newspaper?

Abortion (often condsidered as murder.) is an even more sensitive issue then homosexuality.

That's debatable. You don't have mass cries from the right for an amendment to ban abortion, or keep those who have undergone abortion or agree with abortion from getting married.

 

[Sabastian]

Bah, got no more time for this.

This quote sums up my position on freedom of speech.

We need to remember that free speech does not mean freedom for the speech we agree with. Such speech needs no legal protection. If free speech means anything, it means protecting the speech we find disturbing, abhorrent, offensive.

Have a nice day.

 

[RussSchultz]

You keep asserting you can't change your sexuality.


Let me register my hesitancy to accept that at face value.

 

[Natoma]

You keep asserting you can't change your sexuality.


Let me register my hesitancy to accept that at face value.

I spent a few years trying to be heterosexual, i.e. watching straight porn, trying to date girls, etc etc etc. To all around me, I was a run of the mill hetero, though I didn't enjoy it. Came out to everyone a few years ago.

Did I change my sexuality, or did I merely admit my innate sexuality and alter my behavior to express that sexuality (gay porn instead of straight, dating men instead of women, etc. )?

If I suddenly started dating women and watching straight porn and all that jazz, would it make me heterosexual "again"?