Gay Activist Finally Show True Colors...HATE

It's a trend?

Oh my
I simply MUST
join them
since all gays are the same I'm told
and I'm a gay woman
and I would hate to buck the newest trend.

I'll just run out right now and run off some pamphlets
get a gun
and find someone of the same sex to kiss in front of the congregation.

I'm so glad you told me about this
because one hates to be behind the times doesn't one?

Quote

Last evening, we attended the Christmas lighting at the LDS Mesa Arizona Temple. Gays picketed the event from across the street, displaying huge banners which were illegible. lol

It didn't phase any of the thousands gathered at the Temple. Brooke White (American Idol finalist...and yes, she's LDS too!) participated in the lighting. Methinks the gays missed out on all the gaiety. ;)

Quote

;))) ^^^^ Hi Ari!

Quote

Hey Deb! lol

Quote

Sirfitz wrote:I don't condone anyone retaliating. It's just frustrating that if straights did the same thing at a homosexual meeting, they would be prosecuted under the anti-hate crime laws. Why aren't terrorists like those mentioned arrested the same? I guess the only free speech and peaceful assembly they believe in is their own.

Gays and lesbians are a minority group. Straight people are not. Gays and lesbians are bashed all the time by the dominant cultural group...that's why they are protected by anti-hate crime laws. When some gay activists get together and do hateful things at church activities...sure it's gonna get noticed by the dominant culture...and probably add to the negative stereotype against all homosexuals unfortunately...even though all homosexuals don't join in this kind of activitist behavior. So again...who gets to look bad...all homosexuals! And it ought not to be this way. The behavior of some angry activists can't be generalized to all people who are homosexual.

Quote

walkingstick wrote:It's a trend?

Oh my
I simply MUST
join them
since all gays are the same I'm told
and I'm a gay woman
and I would hate to buck the newest trend.

I'll just run out right now and run off some pamphlets
get a gun
and find someone of the same sex to kiss in front of the congregation.

I'm so glad you told me about this
because one hates to be behind the times doesn't one?

bwahahahaha!

Quote

I think this is a very sad and a disturbing situation but when we are given labels such as homosexuals, Christians, liberals, conservatives, etc... everyone wants to stereotype from the negative that happens in each group. It really hurts the ones who are trying honestly and peacefully to make changes within what they believe in. I spoke to one of my friends yesterday and he in no way condones this type of behavior and believes they should be arrested. We don't need to let these angry activists stereotype the rest.

Edited on November 30, 2008 at 8:55 AM Quote

I agree. If the activists had disrupted an anti-gay rally or march or retaliated to those groups that try to disrupt gay pride marches, then I can understand it. There's no reason to disrupt a peaceful religious service though, and I agree that they should be arrested and treated as if they were homophobic.

Quote

As for this particular situation on this issue, you get no argument from me Fitz.

Quote

How much money did they pour into anti-homosexual legislation?

Quote

We didn't pour any money into "anti-gay" legislation...we voted FOR heterosexual rights...as per our Christian nation and heritage.

Quote

there are wingnuts in every walk and talk of life....

should we assume that all those that believe in God are whack jobs....
should we assume that all atheists are scientists...
should we assume all Muslims are terrorists...
should we assume that all girls like pink
should we assume that a democrats are liberal monkeys
should we assume all republicans like George W?

Quote

Arizonagal wrote:We didn't pour any money into "anti-gay" legislation...we voted FOR heterosexual rights...as per our Christian nation and heritage.

So no money was given to any anti-homosexual legislation propaganda? None at all?

Quote

Sirfitz wrote:

Wiccabasket wrote:How much money did they pour into anti-homosexual legislation?

It makes no difference. This is a basic right of all Americans. We could reverse it and say how much money did the homosexual movement pour in, find out the organizations that did, and terrorize them for their' free speech. I know that is not what you meant by that, but there are groups like those mentioned that do exactly that. When you have organizations that support a particular agenda, the opposing side resorts to terroristic tactics. Those on the left that support these tactics are the loudest claiming intolerance, but they sure show their' intolerance of those that don't believe what they believe in. The people in various states went to the polls and voted for what they believe in. Thats the peaceful and lawful way. Unfortunately, those people that opposed that voting are now showing exactly what they truly are. Terrorist anarchists.

Fitzy, the same thing would have happened had the vote gone in favour of homosexual marriage. You know that, and I know that. The only difference is that certain sections of society (and people on this board) would justify it as 'defending the constitution'.

Quote

She's right on that Fitz. Both sides have their buzzwords and rhetoric to spin things their way even if talking about the same facts. Same applies to protest tactics and targeting those who oppose their side.

I have to say tho, as a (figurative) card-carrying member of the liberal religious left, it does seem to me that the left-wing and its sympathizers are generally less prone to violently attacking those on the other side they disagree with. If you think I'm mistaken, try telling that to the members of a Knoxville Tenn. church in my denomination where a guy who had been bashing liberals for years came in and shot up the place several months ago killing two, because he said he wanted to "go somewhere that had lots of liberals I could make pay for what they've done to me" or such words. Yes, he was nuts, but I've never heard of any such attacks on a right-wing church or any other such conservative organization by someone claiming to be a lefty who said they hate conservatives.

Edited on November 30, 2008 at 2:13 PM Quote

Sirfitz wrote:"A gay anarchist group infiltrated the Mt. Hope Church in Eaton County Sunday morning, disrupting a service by pulling a fire alarm, dropping leaflets and yelling at parishioners, a pastor said.

The group, Bash Back, was simultaneously picketing outside the church, beating on buckets and using a megaphone to shout “Jesus was a homo” and other slogans as confused churchgoers continued to enter the building."

http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing/article-2302-gay-anarchist-action-hits-church.html

Hmmm...wonder if the new anti-hate crime laws could cover this and these terrorists could be arrested under those laws.
This group seems to be pretty big in Michigan. Wonder if these cowards would like to try to do this in an Islamic Mosque. The Muslims say some pretty harsh things about homosexuals. But naw...thats what sets cowards apart. They don't have the bullocks to even go near one.
Or maybe if nothing is done, some activists should go disrupt homosexual gatherings in force and throw fliers around and scream out "gay is wrong!"..Whats fair is fair.
This has gone on long enough.

I do not know

Tony Horton

Christians no longer gay living For God

http://cnlglfg.com

Quote

Pulling a fire alarm vs. shooting and killing two people after going in with a rifle and the intent to kill several more if the gunmen hadn't been tackled and stopped....
Let's see, is this hmm.. possibly comparing apples and oranges....?

Edited on November 30, 2008 at 2:39 PM Quote

what does this mean?

" Finally Show True Colors"

Quote

Sirfitz wrote:

Mishamay wrote:

Sirfitz wrote:I don't condone anyone retaliating. It's just frustrating that if straights did the same thing at a homosexual meeting, they would be prosecuted under the anti-hate crime laws. Why aren't terrorists like those mentioned arrested the same? I guess the only free speech and peaceful assembly they believe in is their own.

Gays and lesbians are a minority group. Straight people are not. Gays and lesbians are bashed all the time by the dominant cultural group...that's why they are protected by anti-hate crime laws. When some gay activists get together and do hateful things at church activities...sure it's gonna get noticed by the dominant culture...and probably add to the negative stereotype against all homosexuals unfortunately...even though all homosexuals don't join in this kind of activitist behavior. So again...who gets to look bad...all homosexuals! And it ought not to be this way. The behavior of some angry activists can't be generalized to all people who are homosexual.

\

You are SOOO misinformed. Anti hate crime laws have no provision in them excusing ANYONE from prosecution. Minorities are not exempt from the law. Hell, anyone can be a minority. If I was a member of a group that believed in having more than one spouse, that makes me a minority, right? So that means because the majority passed laws making it illegal for me to marry more than one person, that makes them fair game, right? I can take a bunch of people, invade their churches and meetings, pull the fire alarms, scream at their members, throw stuff at them, and because I'm part of a minority of people, I can't be prosecuted. LOL
The people of this church never bashed anyone. And this excuse is so lame that it borders on the insane.
And just to set you straight, the majority of homosexual activists have condemned this practice and AGREE it should be prosecuted as a hate crime.

Sirfitz, with all due respect, you have SOOO misunderstood me I think. You had mentioned in your post "It's just frustrating that if straights did the same thing at a homosexual meeting, they would be prosecuted under the anti-hate crime laws. Why aren't terrorists like those mentioned arrested the same?" I was responding to the politics of it all and how it looks to the public, I did not say that straight people were excluded from protection by the anti-hate laws anywhere in my post. I said straight people are not a minority group, that homosexuals are, and that homosexuals are protected by anti-hate laws BECAUSE they are a minority....they need it the most. I thought that was obvious I guess. At the end of my post I stated that "the behavior of some angry activists" can't be generalized to all people who are homosexual. I guess I didn't make it clear that I was separating the behavior of these particular activists out...well now I am...it was disgusting and I did not in fact express any views as to what I thought should be done with them, and certainly not that they should be exempt from laws. I think I did state the behavior was hateful in my first post though. If my post came off as unclear, my apologies. I hope this one clarifies.

Quote

A10cgirl wrote:I think this is a very sad and a disturbing situation but when we are given labels such as homosexuals, Christians, liberals, conservatives, etc... everyone wants to stereotype from the negative that happens in each group. It really hurts the ones who are trying honestly and peacefully to make changes within what they believe in. I spoke to one of my friends yesterday and he in no way condones this type of behavior and believes they should be arrested. We don't need to let these angry activists stereotype the rest.

To further clarify my stance...I fully agree with this post...well said A10Cgirl!

Quote

Sum_Southern_Sugar wrote:what does this mean?

" Finally Show True Colors"

yeah really eh? that's loaded with lots of hmmmm....

Quote

I don't really understand the "Anti-hate" laws. As stated above they are there to protect the minorities but this is where I have a problem with this. Beating someone up, killing or public misconduct is not legal by any realm of the law regardless of who is the victim so why do we have these extra "anti-hate" laws? If you commit any of these crimes you are showing "hate" regardless of which group you belong to. Could someone explain this to me? I'm not trying to start an argument....I truly don't understand.

Quote

i have never understodd that either 10c.

i mean, bopping somneone on the head with a rock is bopping someone on the head with a rock. it's no more or less depending on the victims skin color.

Quote

Sum_Southern_Sugar wrote:i have never understodd that either 10c.

i mean, bopping somneone on the head with a rock is bopping someone on the head with a rock. it's no more or less depending on the victims skin color.

Glad I'm not alone. If a white man kills a black man...it's a hate-crime. If a black man kills a black man or a white man kills a white man or a black man kills a white man then it's just murder? Each one is just as bad as the other to me and the punishment should be the same. I don't understand having to have a separate law.

Quote

I believe the logic of hate-crime laws is to increase the penalties for acts of violence against minorities/protected classes beyond what they would be for attacks against majority group citizens and others who are not members of a protected class under the law. By protected classes, we're talking about people who are specificly protected from discrimination under civil rights laws.

I realize it's an imperfect approach to trying to punish and end bigotry-motivated violence, but the logic of it is two-fold, much of it repugnant to conservatives on two levels. First, part of the logic is to make hate acts more severely punished than normal violence to send a societal message that this type of violence is worse or more unacceptable than average violence that is not bigotry-related. That's because the status quo tends to say minorities are less important than whites, for example, so whites attacking blacks violently is not that big a deal, as it was in the southern US for generations. Conservatives don't like this because it seems to treat minorities as MORE than equal to majority group members in legal protection from violence, but I think it's necessary to send the message that status-quo bigotry is not acceptable anymore, esp. when it results in violence.

The second part of the logic is that by providing greater punishment for hate-related crimes, there is greater deterrence from committing those acts than if the penalties are the same as for the same crime without a hate-crime motivation involved. While the issue of deterrence of crime by increased penalties is always debatable, including in my mind, that logic has long been a part of American criminal law and, ironically, is something conservatives have usually supported in social policy and the law. But once again, most conservatives don't like it in this case because they already disagree with the idea of "special" or extra legal protection in the first place for minority group members or protected classes. In other words, they're strongly for "law and order" as Nixon used to famously say as code words for getting tough on blacks in the 60's and early 70's, but not so much when it means using the criminal law to stand up for gays, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc.

Quote

funny thing is, i'm not conservative in the least, and, personally, i still think it's a bad law. :-)

maybe i'm so far left, i'm almost right? ;-)

hehe

Quote

I guess I also *assumed* a knowledge of the law that I do not have, I'm Canadian...but I assumed based on Sirfitz's post that it must exclude all but minorities. Is this correct?

Quote

I hear ya, Sum. I'm very left, but I have mixed feelings about it and would like to think there are more precise ways to legislate against something that is, by definition, hard to legislate.

On the other hand, I'm not an openly gay person or a racial minority who's been physically attacked by bigots in the past. If I was, I'd probably have no qualms about the hate-crimes laws being very flawed. So, in the end it's mostly a thing that's largely based on your perspective, which is usually where you sit in the social pecking order, isn't it?

Quote

Well, I am conservative but never thought of this as being just a conservative view. Murder is murder regardless of what the motive is. I understand having civil rights laws to protect people from being discriminated against in everyday life but I don't understand separate laws for criminals because of their group, color or whatever.

Quote

Mishamay wrote:I guess I also *assumed* a knowledge of the law that I do not have, I'm Canadian...but I assumed based on Sirfitz's post that it must exclude all but minorities. Is this correct?

I think you are correct because the majority definitely doesn't have this type of protection. The minorities seem to be able to do whatever and they use the "Minority" gun to fall back on and it's a slap on the wrist. If someone beats me up for being a conservative or if they beat me up because they are just robbing me...I want them to go to jail. I care less about why they did it..they beat me up....I want them to have to face the law.

Quote

Here is what I found on wikipedia about U.S. hate crime law:

Hate crime laws in the United States (also known as bias crimes) protect against crimes motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state and federal laws vary, typical protected characteristics are race, religion, ethnicity, and nationality. Sometimes gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability are included as well.

link for more info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States

So according to this, people are protected against hate based on their religion in your country.

Quote

Wiccabasket wrote:

Arizonagal wrote:We didn't pour any money into "anti-gay" legislation...we voted FOR heterosexual rights...as per our Christian nation and heritage.

So no money was given to any anti-homosexual legislation propaganda? None at all?

Nope. Not by our Church. "Homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron, BTW.

Exercising one's constitutional right to vote is not a valid reason to attack one's religion. And gays continue to conspire to reverse the will of the majority.

Edited on November 30, 2008 at 5:01 PM Quote

That should say some races, some religions, etc. The reality is that it doesn't apply to all or at least not implemented for all. You may see a crime that has nothing to do with what they call "a hate-crime" but if the victim is of the minority then it will soon be considered a "hate-crime". I've just never understood it and guess I never will. It's just become a part of life here in the states or at least in the area I live.

Edited on November 30, 2008 at 5:05 PM Quote

It's called reverse discrimination.

Quote

Arizonagal wrote:It's called reverse discrimination.

True...but there is no protection from it.

Quote

A10cgirl wrote:

Arizonagal wrote:It's called reverse discrimination.

True...but there is no protection from it.

That's because the Christian conservatives have been asleep. The gay community are a strong lobby and force; they don't fight amongst themselves as Christians do. They have legislative power and money to promote their agenda. This is the reason we are losing our country and freedom.

Quote

Arizonagal wrote:

A10cgirl wrote:

Arizonagal wrote:It's called reverse discrimination.

True...but there is no protection from it.

That's because the Christian conservatives have been asleep. The gay community are a strong lobby and force; they don't fight amongst themselves as Christians do. They have legislative power and money to promote their agenda. This is the reason we are losing our country and freedom.

Good point!

Quote

A10cgirl wrote:That should say some races, some religions, etc. The reality is that it doesn't apply to all or at least not implemented for all. You may see a crime that has nothing to do with what they call "a hate-crime" but if the victim is of the minority then it will soon be considered a "hate-crime". I've just never understood it and guess I never will. It's just become a part of life here in the states or at least in the area I live.

I'm not going to repeat my earlier explanation or mishamay's post above, but even tho it's clear you will never agree with me on the principle(s) behind bias or hate-crime laws, your theory of it being frequently misused is, I think, mistaken and wrong in most cases.

In a case like your above example, the prosecution would have to convince, more likely a jury than a judge, that the suspect not only committed the crime but that the crime was motivated by hate or bias against a protected minority group that the victim is a member of (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.). During this whole trial, the prosecution would have a burden of proof for: The victim's membership in the protected class, the suspect's knowledge that the victim was a member of that class and that the suspect was motivated by bias or hate against that class, and most of all, in order to convict the suspect of the additional charge of a hate crime, the prosecution would have to get a unanimous verdict from the jury (since in a case with a hate crime charge the defense would almost always opt for a jury trial where their chances would be better than with a judge deciding the verdict). Now, since the defense and prosecution could both strike people from being on the jury if they could prove bias in a potential juror, the jury would most likely be just as easily be all-white, all-straight, or just as easily be a mix of mostly majority group members with a couple minorities thrown in.

Oh, and I almost forgot to mention that if the defense could convince a judge that the defendant could not get a fair trial based on the racial or religious demographics of the place where the crime occurred, then the trial could be moved to somewhere else where the jury pool would be more fair-read favorable-to the defense. But once the jury is chosen, they can vote whatever biases or prejudices they have in their verdict. So, in a case where a hate-crime charge is ALL about bias and attitudes towards minorities in the verdict, you tell me how easy it would usually be to get a guilty verdict in such a case where the victim really wasn't deserving of such an outcome based on the evidence?
For a recent example of how much bias can cause an unjust jury verdict in a criminal case, I need only refer you to OJ's murder trial.

Edited on November 30, 2008 at 5:34 PM Quote

Tom...I do understand your explanation of it. Apparently you don't live in an area where race is always an issue as I do. Everything that is touched here turns into a race or minority issue. The courts don't always work as they should. And yes, you are right...I don't agree with the law. I don't think it has any logic but I do appreciate you explaining the thoughts behind it.

Quote

Race is seldom an issue here because the state is about 95% white, and I'm not exaggerating it. Your area may be very different and I wouldn't know because I've lived here all my life.

Edited to add: I saw from your profile that you live in Tennessee. Yes, that would be very different from Iowa, a southern state and one that would have a much larger black population, as well as a long history of racial conflicts. Sound about right?

Edited on November 30, 2008 at 6:31 PM Quote

tomac626 wrote:Race is seldom an issue here because the state is about 95% white, and I'm not exaggerating it. Your area may be very different and I wouldn't know because I've lived here all my life.

I live in the Memphis area.

Edited on November 30, 2008 at 6:29 PM Quote

Arizonagal wrote:

Wiccabasket wrote:

Arizonagal wrote:We didn't pour any money into "anti-gay" legislation...we voted FOR heterosexual rights...as per our Christian nation and heritage.

So no money was given to any anti-homosexual legislation propaganda? None at all?

Nope. Not by our Church. "Homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron, BTW.

Exercising one's constitutional right to vote is not a valid reason to attack one's religion. And gays continue to conspire to reverse the will of the majority.

Hang on, are you telling me that the LDS didn't donate any money to the 'vote NO to proposition 8' campaign?

Quote

why cant everyone live together as one and screww all the labelling stuff

Quote

donnyxxx wrote:why cant everyone live together as one and screww all the labelling stuff

Well, I would be all for that, but remember mate, my country fought a civil war that was mainly over this kind of stuff and if you ask most people in the southern US, they'll either tell you it's not over yet or that it doesn't seem like it ended that long ago in their minds. Either way, it's not very encouraging of your view.

Edited on November 30, 2008 at 6:35 PM Quote

tomac626 wrote:Race is seldom an issue here because the state is about 95% white, and I'm not exaggerating it. Your area may be very different and I wouldn't know because I've lived here all my life.

Edited to add: I saw from your profile that you live in Tennessee. Yes, that would be very different from Iowa, a southern state and one that would have a much larger black population, as well as a long history of racial conflicts. Sound about right?

Yes...and unfortunately it is still continuing. We have a crisis right now with our police department. We are about 200 officers short and they can't find enough qualified applicants. The force is about 60% black and 40% white. It has been brought up by members of the city council that we need to relax the law that all police officers must live in the city limits to span out 20 miles from the city to try to get more qualified officers. Memphis was just rated as #2 on the crime rate scale in the U.S. When the city council voted it was a straight line of racial divide and they have turned the whole thing into a race issue. Even though our mayor is black and so is the chief of police and they both support going out the 20 miles. The city council has come racially divided and it's really causing a mess. It's putting every citizen in danger.

Edited on November 30, 2008 at 6:42 PM Quote