Biblical message now criminalized
We read:
"A new Colorado law is helping homosexual activists achieve their goal of forcing Christians to teach biblical condemnation of homosexuality only behind the closed doors of their sanctuaries. The as-yet untested state law promotes sexual identity "perception" to the level of skin color under state discrimination laws.
Some opponents are calling it a "bona fide censorship law," and top analysts for Focus on the Family, the Christian publishing and broadcast powerhouse, are expressing concern over the "mischief" they expect to follow the signing by Gov. Bill Ritter....
"The law exempts churches, but that's not good, that's an insult. i.e., bigotry is allowed only in churches. Whereas every other place of public accommodation including bookstores, retail & wholesale businesses, etc. cannot sell or even 'give away' anything that would advocate discrimination [against] gay adoption, homosexual marriage, etc.," Enyart said.
Source
14 comments:
It won't stand. But what bothers me most is that they passed it in the first place. It is not bigotry to be against sexual preference/ perversion. You cannot choose the color of your skin. Everyone, however, chooses who or what you sleep with.
so now you can't sell or give away bibles in Colorado because they contain hate speech?
I wonder what they'd think of the Q'Uran...
Or Das Kapital.
Hello Good Gentles All!
Here is the actual text of SB 200.
It is dry reading if you have no legal training but a real corker if you do!
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/
clics2008/csl.nsf/billcontainers/
BD7A295EB6F4460E872573F5005D0148/
$FILE/200_enr.pdf
The section (Section 8. 23-34-701) which has so many people upset is a little more interesting than the excerpts make it sound.
Specifically the law restricts the creation, publication and dissemination of materials which attempt to cause discrimination against the protected class of persons ('that is intended or calculated to discriminate or actually discriminates ...') with respect to access to those public accomodations which the law intends to protect.
Further, the persons so enjoined must be related to the place of public accomodation ('... owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee ...'.)
It appears they want to supress publications of the type such as a flyer which might say something such as 'Do not rent your apartments to homosexuals,' or 'Do not allow homosexuals in your restaurant,' or posting a sign in your hospital saying 'homosexuals forbidden,' but only by the persons who operate those public accomodations or their agents.
I still have my doubts about the constitutionality of the statute (the phrase '... or calculated to discriminate ...' makes me nervous) but clearly they are attempting to limit speech which advocates the violation of the public accomodation laws and not anti-homosexual speech generally and only by those persons operating the specific public accomodations or their agents.
(BTW, the statute is severable so if the any sections are struck down the remainder of them which are unaffected by the invalidation will remain in force.)
So far as operating under this statute is concerned if someone, for example, owns an apartment building he can still publish a pamphlet declaring that homosexuality is wrong. What he can not do is post a sign on his apartment building stating that he will not rent his apartments to homosexuals or publish a pamphlet that advocates that other landlords do likewise.
This is a very different thing than what the source article title:
"Biblical message now criminalized
Penalties created for those who criticize homosexuality outside church walls,"
would have the reader believe.
I am offended by homosexuality.
But I am equally offended by hypocritical religionists who have so little faith in the rectitude of their arguments that they have to resort to such deliberate distortions in order to gin up support for their cause.
Pax,
InFides
Thank God for AIDS!
Pax,
You can defend it all you want but just like we have seen happen over and over and over again, this is just a stepping stone to make to outlaw free speech and religon.
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Anonymous!
I am not defending the statute as such. Frankly, I find its language suspect.
What I was decrying was the disingenuous behavior of people who said the law banned something which, clearly, by its language it did not.
I can oppose homosexuality and intelligently defend that position without having to resort to false accusations about the content of legislation in order to mobilize the troops.
If we conservatives are to prevail in the marketplace of ideas then the first prerequisite is for us to respect the truth.
Pax,
InFides
merely a stepping stone... the libs should be called 'erosionist'
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Anonymous!
Was the ban on encouraging a mob to riot just a stepping stone? There have always been reasonable restrictions on speech.
The statute says that no proprietor shall post a sign suborning violation of the statute at his place of public accomodation or encourge others to violate the statute.
Rather like not allowing someone posting a sign on his business telling handicapped people they can not park in the handicapped spots.
Or, similarly, like posting a sign that says that non-handicapped should park in the handicapped spots.
Pax,
InFides
"If we conservatives are to prevail in the marketplace of ideas then the first prerequisite is for us to respect the truth."
That's a laudable notion Pax, but truth has never had an impact in politics. On the contrary. The perfect example are those on the Left who rarely bother telling the truth, yet they gain more control of this country every day.
What counts in the end is not who prevails in the marketplace of ideas, but who controls the information that goes out to the people. And that's the Left! The American people are no longer interested in truth, and in fact, rarely recognize it, believe it, or appreciate it when they hear it.... GSP
Hey Pax or Infides whatever don't care. It's sort of funny how on the issue of burning the flag you're all for free speech but if someone says something like I don't like homo's then their speech is not protected.
Since you seem so smart (you can cut and paste with the best of them:) explain to me why I have to like someone or some group? When did I lose the right to not like something? Like we both can agree to dislike each other and that's it. No harm no foul. It does not make you or me better or less of a person. It also doesn't make either of us to be ignorant. Just like you make like blondes over redheads.
In my opinion the gay issue has been way overplayed by the left. How many stories have you heard in the news about a gay person being rejected for housing or a job? Not many, I did a lexis search and couldn't find one in the past two years. To me we are making so many laws to protect what?
Do me a favor, read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution again. And I mean read it, feel it. I did this recently and I was shocked at how far we have strayed from our Founding Fathers ideas. You can get a copy for free from the CATO Institute.
As for the building owner not being allowed to pick and choose who lives in his apartments is an offense to his rights, no? I have a two family house that I rent out. Why can't I choose who lives there or not. Isn't it my right to pick? Now 50 years ago when there wasn't much choice of housing I would agree.
Now after babbling on and on for nothing I appreciate that we have the ability to even have this conversation. To be honest we are both right:) Because there is no right and wrong in this discussion. If I knew where you lived it would be fun to sit and have a beer with you. I say this because of an experience I recently had in Atlanta. I am having this wonderful conversation with this total hottie and we are hitting it off. When out of the blue she asks if I am a repub or a liberal. Funny, it used to be repub or demo, anyways, after I say repub she walks away. Now before I am flammed I am sure if my looks or breathe were going to scare her away it would have happened in the first 5 minutes not 3 hours later:)
Ok I'm done... sorry for rambling.
Peace all,
Dave
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Dave!
"It's sort of funny how on the issue of burning the flag you're all for free speech but if someone says something like I don't like homo's then their speech is not protected."
We are talking of two different things. It is vital that you read the CO statute (SB200.)
I am all for free speech of any kind. However, there is a very great difference between free speech of the form 'I dislike homosexuality' and posting a sign on a public accomodation that says 'Homosexuals not allowed' in contravention of a statute mandating equal access to all persons to places of public accomodation.
I dislike homosexuality but I am not prepared to advocate (suborn) any actions against homosexuals that are illegal. Also, I am not prepared to create an environment where they can not find places to live or work or get medical care or food. I am not prepared to treat homosexual people like that for the same reason I am not prepared to treat anyone else (black, Jew, etc.) like that. Why should these people be denied a place to live when they have broken no laws?
"Since you seem so smart (you can cut and paste with the best of them:)"
I cut and paste because I want to answer each argument and not miss anything. I feel I owe each person a fair hearing of his argument. For me, it is a matter of respect.
"... explain to me why I have to like someone or some group? When did I lose the right to not like something?"
I agree. That is not what the statue is saying. You did not lose the right to dislike anything. What you never had was the right to suborn breaking the law (any law.) This statute merely speaks to that point.
When the civil rights act was passed it was no longer acceptable to post a sign that said 'Whites Only' or 'Colored Only'. You can dislike a person's ethnicity as much as you want. What you can not do is demand he sit at the back of the bus. This is the same exact issue.
"Just like you make like blondes over redheads."
I like both; I am an equal opportunity lecher.
"Do me a favor, read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution again."
I read these documents several times each year as I am constantly referencing them.
" And I mean read it, feel it. I did this recently and I was shocked at how far we have strayed from our Founding Fathers ideas.
The founding fathers never supported suborning breaking the law or using speech to incite illegal acts. Need I cite the old yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater argument yet again? There are no absolute righs and if you think the constitution grants an absolute right to anything you have not followed the legal processes of this country for the last 200+ years or the process of the common law for the last 1000 years.
The CO statute says nothing about your feelings or in any way restricts what you may like or dislike or what you might say publically about those likes and dislikes.
As I said, I am not in favor of the statute as it is. What I found and still find offensive is people who make claims to what the statutes says (Bibles are now illegal, etc.) when it says no such thing.
Have you read my posts and the actual statute? I am arguing about what people are falsely saying the statute says. That was my original argument and I sill stand on that argument. The truth is worth respecting. Conservatives should adhere to the merits of their arguments and not promote false understandings of the issues to achieve their ends. The left can do that sort of thing but we should adhere to the principal of honesty.
"As for the building owner not being allowed to pick and choose who lives in his apartments is an offense to his rights, no? I have a two family house that I rent out. Why can't I choose who lives there or not. Isn't it my right to pick?"
We are talking about public accomodation law. The idea is that everyone should be treated equally with respect to access to the resources of the society.
Do you feel you should be allowed to post a sign that says 'No Blacks?' Do you not feel that you are treating people who have done nothing wrong unfairly?
" Now 50 years ago when there wasn't much choice of housing I would agree."
The idea is to create durable law. I find it suspect to suggest that as long as there is a lot of housing available that somehow the idea of equal access is no longer valid. Is not your right to be treated fairly a fundamental right and not merely contingent on exigent circumstances?
The principle is the issue. I am not sure the courts considered whether if there is enough of a societal resource available whether it is then OK to treat people discriminatorily with access to some of those resources.
"Now after babbling on and on for nothing I appreciate that we have the ability to even have this conversation."
Amen. May God bless and keep these United States.
"... If I knew where you lived it would be fun to sit and have a beer with you."
I offer you a digital glass of suds. Cheers.
Pax,
InFides
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello GSP!
Sorry, I did nto realize you posted something.
"That's a laudable notion Pax, but truth has never had an impact in politics. ..."
True, generally. Though there have been exceptions, Churchill, Lincoln, Washington, Burke.
"... On the contrary. The perfect example are those on the Left who rarely bother telling the truth, yet they gain more control of this country every day."
"What counts in the end is not who prevails in the marketplace of ideas, but who controls the information that goes out to the people."
I can appreciate your point but I can not live my life that way. I simply can not subscribe to the notion that I should become a better or more successful liar in order to impact my society. If I become what I most decry then have I lost not only the battle but also my soul?
I can not bear the thought that our only hope is to become more proficient deceivers than our opponents. Gallileo told the truth as he understood it. He did not live to see his actions vindicated but ultimately the truth prevailed. I stand on that hope.
I lay no claim to knowing the truth. I call things as I see them. But fidelity to my principles is a higher obligation than appealing to the mob.
"The American people are no longer interested in truth, and in fact, rarely recognize it, believe it, or appreciate it when they hear it.
True, but does this mean I should do as they do or hold to my principles?
Is it better to be straight alone or crooked with the whole world?
Pax,
InFides
bigguaday http://neurontin.wikidot.com http://buy-suhagra.wikidot.com http://comprare-cialis.wikidot.com bigguaday
Ancedeelime [url=http://wiki.openqa.org/display/~where-can-i-buy-viagra-without-prescription]herbal viagra[/url] Viagra [url=http://wiki.openqa.org/display/~where-can-i-buy-differin-without-prescription]cost differin[/url] Differin [url=http://wiki.openqa.org/display/~where-can-i-buy-ativan-without-prescription]buy ativan[/url] Ativan [url=http://wiki.openqa.org/display/~where-can-i-buy-propecia-without-prescription]propecia[/url] Propecia [url=http://wiki.openqa.org/display/~where-can-i-buy-prozac-without-prescription]buspar celexa prozac paxil anafranil[/url] Prozac Immefeabajern
Post a Comment