Why We Must Fight the Gay Agenda.


#1

LifeSiteNews Mobile | Supreme Court muzzles free speech in Canada, rules against Catholic pro-family activist

OTTAWA, Ontario, 27 February, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Canada’s top court has released an unanimous decision today that critics say has struck a monumental blow against freedom of speech, opinion, and religion across the country. The court ordered the defendant, a Catholic pro-family activist with a reputation for intense activism, not only to pay a fine, but also to pay court costs which could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/images/sized/images/news/Supreme_Court_of_Canada-240x148.jpg

The Canadian Supreme Court

 “It’s a bad day,” said Bill Whatcott to LifeSiteNews.com in an  interview. “The ruling and the reasoning [behind it] is terrible. They  actually used the concept that truth is not a defense.”
  “It’s worse than I expected. What it means is that my life is over, as I  know it. It means that the Christian Church is going to be libel for  speaking the truth,” he said.
  In *Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott*, the Supreme Court [decided](http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/index.do)  that born-again Christian William Whatcott was guilty of hate-speech  for distributing flyers to neighborhoods in Saskatoon and Regina in 2001  and 2002. While the flyers used vehement language against homosexual  practices and the homosexual agenda, they did not however directly  attack homosexual persons. (The flyers are appended to the end of the  decision linked above)
  The Court focused on Whatcott’s main argument, namely that he loves  homosexuals with a brotherly Christian love, and it is only their sexual  activity that he denounces.
  The Supreme Court found however that with regards to hate-speech, the  distinction between ‘sin and sinner’ no longer applies. No longer can  Christians give the defense before courts that one ‘loves the sinner,  but hates the sin’.
  “I agree that sexual orientation and sexual behaviour can be  differentiated for certain purposes,” the Court stated. “However, in  instances where hate speech is directed toward behaviour in an effort to  mask the true target, the vulnerable group, this distinction should not  serve to avoid s. 14(1)(b) [the hate-crime clause of the Code].”
  “Courts have recognized a strong connection between sexual orientation  and sexual conduct and where the conduct targeted by speech is a crucial  aspect of the identity of a vulnerable group, attacks on this conduct  stand as proxy for attacks on the group itself,” the Court stated.
  The Court ordered Whatcott to pay the Human Rights Commission’s legal  fees and to pay $7,500 in compensation to two homosexuals who were  offended by his flyers.
  Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women of Canada, called the ruling “very depressing” and “bad news”.
  Landolt accused the Supreme Court of “dancing on hot coals, one foot  here and one foot there, trying to pretend that they’re doing one thing,  but doing another.”
  “On the one hand they’re saying, ‘Oh, no, no, no, we’re not really  infringing on freedom of religion and freedom of speech and freedom of  opinion’, but in fact, what they say is not what they’ve done,” she said  in an interview with LifeSiteNews.com.
  “In effect, what they’ve done is they’ve hit-out at religious beliefs  and promoted again, as is constantly happening, homosexual rights.”
  “They’ve picked up ‘sexual orientation’ and slammed ‘religious freedom’  with it and given it a big wallop as with a baseball bat,” she said.
  Landolt said that the Court has damaged freedom of religion by  “manipulating and twisting” the whole intent of this freedom “to serve  their own objective which is to protect homosexuals.”
  She said that Christians had better take the ruling as a “warning sign”  that they are going to be “pounced on” if they decide to speak about  Christian sexual morality in the public square.
  The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) is concerned over the Court’s  equating homosexual activity with homosexual persons such that it turns  criticism of sexual behaviour into “hate-speech” of an identifiable  minority.
  “A key teaching of Christianity is to hate the sin, but love the  sinner,” said CCRL president Phil Horgan, pointing out that as a  society, “we incarcerate convicted persons for their crimes, not out of  hate for the individual.”
  “But with Whatcott, the SCC has stated that criticism of behaviour(s)  can be treated as potentially hateful speech against the minority. Will  criticism of activities at gay pride parades be treated similarly? Will  criticism of certain homosexual sexual activities be now conflated as an  example of hate speech of an individual or minority? This conflation of  behaviour with the person or group, is a proposition at odds with most  religious teachings, and of concern coming from our highest court.”
  Chris Schafer, Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) executive  director and lawyer, said that the “Supreme Court missed an excellent  opportunity to rein in the power of various human rights commissions and  tribunals to censor the expression of unpopular beliefs and opinions.”
  “Free expression is the lifeblood of democracies and all forms of  expression, especially the offensive kind, needs to be protected.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees,” he said.
  André Schutten, legal counsel for the Association for Reformed  Political Action (ARPA), said he was disappointed with the ruling since  the Court decided to “keep as constitutional” the ambiguous hate-crimes  language of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, which prohibits any  representation “that exposes or tends to expose to hatred” persons on  the basis of a prohibited ground.
  Schutten told LifeSiteNews.com that upholding such language is  “problematic” since “hatred is an emotion that cannot be easily and  objectively measured.”
  Schutten said that the ruling means that Christians will now be “less  likely to engage in political debate from their viewpoint, which means  that Christians are kept out of the political process”. He said that the  ruling will also hamper Christians in preaching the “full Gospel”.
  “The preaching of the Gospel requires that we know what the Good News  is. And the Good News is that we’re saved. But in order to understand  that we are saved, we have to know what we are saved from. So, when we  are preaching the Gospel, that includes preaching about sin. And sin is  always going to be offensive to some people. When we talk about sin,  some people will interpret that as hateful.”
  Schutten said that the ruling “puts a chill on religious expression and any expression.”
  Ezra Levant from Sun News has predicted that the ruling will inundate  Human Rights Commissions with hate-speech based complaints.
  “You will see a boom in the Human Rights Commission business because  the law is so vague and the Supreme Court is saying: ‘Yeah, you can go  after someone if they say something hateful’. We are going to see an  explosion of hate-speech complaints out there,” he said.
  Whatcott agrees. He told LifeSiteNews.com that the ruling will embolden  homosexual activists to file complaints against those who raise a voice  against sexual anarchy.
  Despite the ruling, Whatcott said that he will continue to “publicly  witness against homosexuality” since he sees it has “God’s will” in his  life. The Christian activist is soliciting prayers from people of faith  so that he will receive the spiritual support needed to get through this  time.

In Canada, Christianity is now hate speech. Criticizing Sin is now bigotry against the sinner. This will be America in 10 years if the LGBT lobby gets their way. Don’t think for one minute that the First Amendment will protect Christians from the real bigots who would like to see religious people marginalized. The Supreme Court in our country will do the same as theirs.

If you still are not convinced that gay marriage is important, consider something for a moment. I have been doing some research recently on this. 20 years ago, support for redefining marriage was insignificant. In 2 decades we have gone from almost universal opposition to SSM to criticism of the gay lifestyle being illegal in some countries. Public opinion does not naturally change this quickly on any subject. This is happening because no one took the issue seriously enough in the '80s and '90s to pre-emptively strike it. But it also raises the question: What will America, and the world, be like, 20 years from now? It frightens me.

Sci-Fi writer Orson Scott Card’s career is under attack by gay activists who can’t stand the fact that he exists. Gay comic book fans protested DC Comic’s inviting him to write a Superman series. Read more Here.

We still have fight in us left, do not forget it. The Supreme Court is not guaranteed to side with the Agenda, and most US States have constitutional bans on gay “marriage.” They haven’t won yet.

On a less serious note:

http://cdn.nomblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/marchmeme3.jpg


#2

The Homosexuals on this site will now rejoice.


#3

I’m a slight bit confused.


#4

Well, I guess I’ll be re-evaluating my teaching position in Canada. Is this a done deal?


#5

Probably.


#6

“It’s a bad day,” said Bill Whatcott to LifeSiteNews.com in an interview. “The ruling and the reasoning [behind it] is terrible. They actually used the concept that truth is not a defense.”

:Thud:


#7

http://troll.me/images/holy-responses-batman/holy-homophobes-batman-thumb.jpg

https://s3.amazonaws.com/campaign_print/production/media/73/largesquare.jpeg?1341067331

You’re gonna feel pretty dumb within a decade LB.


#8

[quote=“Cam, post:7, topic:38502”]

http://troll.me/images/holy-responses-batman/holy-homophobes-batman-thumb.jpg

https://s3.amazonaws.com/campaign_print/production/media/73/largesquare.jpeg?1341067331

You’re gonna feel pretty dumb within a decade LB.
[/quote]I’m confused. Are you saying he’s going to “feel dumb” because he tried and failed?


#9

It looks like Bill Whatcott’s not going to back down.

I’m not going to feel dumb, I’ll feel good that I stood for my principles, that’s all that matters.


#10

[quote=“Lord_Brennus, post:9, topic:38502”]
I’m not going to feel dumb, I’ll feel good that I stood for my principles, that’s all that matters.
[/quote]Good for you. The possibility that you might fail has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the virtues of trying.

And there’s also the chance that you may indeed . . . WIN! Look at the Dewey/Truman election of 1948.

Seriously, “winning” really isn’t the point, despite what Vince Lombardi said.

Just look at the thousands and thousands of little kids that play in a little league and their team never rises to a significant level.

Would you call their effort “dumb”, CAM?


#11

No…because he is going to grow up & leave home & be exposed to the world at large in real life, and find that what he thought were his principles are actually stupid prejudices and he’ll be embarrassed by them down the road. Unless he is planning on attending Bob Jones University that is.


#12

Just because one is exposed to the world and all its evils (as we all have been) doesn’t mean that we give up and wallow in the filth. And, if one does wind up falling into the filth, hopefully, by the Grace of God, one can get up, brush himself off, and not fall again.


#13

[quote=“Cam, post:11, topic:38502”]
No…because he is going to grow up & leave home & be exposed to the world at large in real life, and find that what he thought were his principles are actually stupid prejudices and he’ll be embarrassed by them down the road. Unless he is planning on attending Bob Jones University that is.
[/quote]You’re predicting an outcome for him BASED on your opinions.

I believe he has clearly shown he does NOT share your opinions, therefore his opinion of his outcome will likely differ substantially from yours.

But at best you are speculating, and so am I . . . and so would he be.

He may change his opinions and come to the conclusion you have, OTOH he may just as likely become firmer in the opinion he has at this stage of the game, and disagree with you even more.

Your speculation is only as valid as it would be IF he were to change his opinion.


#14

I started out as a Liberal. Then I moved out on my own and became a Conservative and have become more firm as I age.

Let Cam have his fantasy of being omniscient.


#15

Oh please forgive me Zod for having an opinion on an internet chat board. I also have the opinion that your opinion that “he may just as likely become firmer in the opinion he has at this stage of the game” is invalid based on current polling of young adults. He is much more likely to not hold bigoted opinions in another 10 years. (Those born after 1981 support gay marriage by 2/3 majority and the YOUNGER adults of that group by even more.Pew2011) Sorry for offering another opinion but I just can’t seem to help myself. Something about this board just makes me want to assert my 1st amendment rights!


#16

[quote=“Cam, post:15, topic:38502”]
Oh please forgive me Zod for having an opinion on an internet chat board. I also have the opinion that your opinion that “he may just as likely become firmer in the opinion he has at this stage of the game” is invalid based on current polling of young adults. He is much more likely to not hold bigoted opinions in another 10 years. (Those born after 1981 support gay marriage by 2/3 majority and the YOUNGER adults of that group by even more.Pew2011) Sorry for offering another opinion but I just can’t seem to help myself. Something about this board just makes me want to assert my 1st amendment rights!
[/quote]I never said you couldn’t have an opinion, no matter how ridiculous I think it might be, nor did I attempt to censor your free speech . . . I simply disagree with everything you said. That’s also an element of an “internet chat board”, no?

Exaggeration and sarcasm sometimes serve to emphasize a point, but also can serve to highlight absurdities . . . which was done here.

Best I can tell, from all his posts, Lord Brennus, is not among your majority. But let’s let him express his own opinion on this, and see if HE thinks he will conform to your statistics.


#17

[quote=“Cam, post:15, topic:38502”]
Oh please forgive me Zod for having an opinion on an internet chat board. I also have the opinion that your opinion that “he may just as likely become firmer in the opinion he has at this stage of the game” is invalid based on current polling of young adults. He is much more likely to not hold bigoted opinions in another 10 years. (Those born after 1981 support gay marriage by 2/3 majority and the YOUNGER adults of that group by even more.Pew2011) Sorry for offering another opinion but I just can’t seem to help myself. Something about this board just makes me want to assert my 1st amendment rights!
[/quote]So, Cam, you care nothing about the fact that the “wrong” opinion is silenced by law in this matter? All you’ve done in this thread is deride the OP. Your posts in this thread are pathetic as is your lack of defense of what I believe is a universal right, the right to free speech. You go ahead exercise your First Amendment right while others clearly suffer without it. I’m left to conclude that you don’t care one whit for anyone else’s right to hold and voice an opinion based on your senseless response.

How long until the gays attempt to hold this board liable for its “hate” speech? Will you even care when that particular square of Constitutional toilet paper is used and tossed away to that end?


#18

@ Cam

If the best argument you can come up with is that the majority of people will disagree with me, then I’ll stick with my views.

The reason we’re losing is that people don’t have the courage to stand up for their beliefs. I’ll be willing to bet that at least half of SSM supporters don’t want to support it. You probably don’t either, but they were afraid of what people would think of them.

When polygamy is the issue, let’s see where you stand.


#19

[quote=“Rightwing_Nutjob, post:17, topic:38502”]
that particular square of Constitutional toilet paper is used and tossed away to that end?
[/quote]Nice phrasing. My compliments.


#20

It’s the new elitism of the GOP–same as the elitism of the DNC.