- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Pastor being sued for anti gay stance here in the US.
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:18 pm to Joshjrn
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:18 pm to Joshjrn
quote:Expand on this for me, please. I'm curious about the direction you are headed here.
If religious people were honest, they would admit that they didn't care about the loss of property rights of others as long as they were treated as special exceptions.
1
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:18 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
It isn't ok.
So he can not speak out against homosexuality?
quote:
However, the issue is the Civil Rights Act.
Sorry, What civil rights are we talking about Josh? What country are we talking about with those civil rights?
quote:
If religious people were honest, they would admit that they didn't care about the loss of property rights of others as long as they were treated as special exceptions.
Have no idea how this is apart of our conversation.
quote:
Now that you're being treated like everyone else, you all of a sudden have a problem.
If you are now moving towards churches being forced to go against their beliefs, yeah. I have a problem with it.
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:21 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
since when is libel not illegal in the United States?
His "Actions" were not in the US. Are you now saying that we are at the point where a pastor can not speak out against homosexuality in the US?
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:27 pm to darkhorse
Do you know what libel is?
Preaching isn't even relevant. What is relevant is that he published the accusation that homosexuals had a compulsion to abuse children.
Preaching isn't even relevant. What is relevant is that he published the accusation that homosexuals had a compulsion to abuse children.
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:28 pm to darkhorse
He isn't going to say much more because he realizes he sounds like a complete dumbazz.
They argue no effect no harm on one hand, and are trying to cut off our rights with the other hand.
Truth is they are in effect, anti christian bigots.
They argue no effect no harm on one hand, and are trying to cut off our rights with the other hand.
Truth is they are in effect, anti christian bigots.
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:28 pm to darkhorse
quote:
Sorry, What civil rights are we talking about Josh? What country are we talking about with those civil rights?
This entire post was directed at your exchange with Carbola. My apologies for not being more clear.
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:29 pm to darkhorse
The complaint is that he crossed over the lines of free speech.
Anti-Gay rhetoric in Uganda probably leads to some violence.
The document doesn't really address how far this guy went. The freedom of speech does not protect your right in insight violence against other people.
Anti-Gay rhetoric in Uganda probably leads to some violence.
The document doesn't really address how far this guy went. The freedom of speech does not protect your right in insight violence against other people.
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:29 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
since when is libel not illegal in the United States
You sure this is the path you want to go down?Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:31 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
The freedom of speech does not protect your right in insight violence against other people.
True. I can't wait until any anti-homosexual preaching is considered violence inciting hate-speech....
Nobody warned of this...ever.
This post was edited on 1/20/14 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:33 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
True. I can't wait until any anti-homosexual preaching is considered violence inciting hate-speech....
There are nazi rallies in america. they only get in trouble when their followers actually go out and kill jews and blacks.
The document really points out that this guy is instrumental in helping write anti-gay legislation and policy in Uganda.
At the very least the court should hear the case.
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:34 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Expand on this for me, please. I'm curious about the direction you are headed here.
Your right to freely exercise your religion is separate and apart from your right to engage in business transactions. Put another way, believing that homosexuality is immoral is simply that: a belief. You can believe it, preach it, to your heart's content.
Legally speaking, one can believe, and preach, that blacks are inferior to whites. (Before anyone flies off the handle, no, I'm not comparing the beliefs. Shut up and stay on topic).
The Civil Rights Act destroyed the property rights of private business owners and forced them to do business with people they did not want to do business with. As long religious people could continue discriminating in their businesses, they didn't seem to care that Heart of Atlanta Motel was being forced to violate their beliefs.
Having "religious beliefs" doesn't exempt you from the law. So, if the religious want to complain, they should step up and fight the entire Act, not just the loss of their personal exemption.
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:36 pm to darkhorse
quote:
Judge Ponsor relies upon the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ("ICC") for his definitions of "persecution" and "crime against humanity", which the complaint alleges Pastor Lively aided and abetted by his support for the anti-gay actions and agenda of members of Uganda's government. However, the United States has never ratified the Rome Statute.
Judge Ponsor acknowledges that no current international treaty or compact, including the Rome Statute, makes discrimination against persons on account of their sexual orientation expressly subject to its terms.
Judge Ponsor holds that Pastor Lively, who visited Uganda twice in 2002 and then not again until 2009, could be regarded as a "co-conspirator" with a member of the Ugandan legislature who introduced proposed legislation against homosexual behavior (the bill never passed).
Judge Ponsor also holds that Pastor Lively may be held responsible in Massachusetts for the alleged anti-gay sentiment aroused in Uganda by his authorship of two books published in the United States in 2007 and 2009 and describing and attacking the gay rights agenda in the United States, even though the plaintiff organization could not allege that any Ugandan police or government officials who implemented that country's own anti-gay agenda against its members had actually read either book.
Judge Ponsor declines to apply Ugandan law to the offenses of civil conspiracy and negligence alleged in the complaint -- because Uganda does not recognize the tort of civil conspiracy, while Massachusetts does, and because the concept of "duty of care" under Ugandan negligence law was unclear. Recognizing that the plaintiff could not sue Pastor Lively in Uganda for these offenses, Judge Ponsor throws open the doors of his courtroom so that the plaintiff will have a forum for its grievances.
quote:
Although the United States is not a party to the I.C.C.’s Statute, the Obama administration has been prepared to support the court’s prosecutions and provide assistance in response to specific requests from the I.C.C. prosecutor and other court officials, consistent with U.S. law, when it is in U.S. national interest to do so.
If found guilty, the USA can choose to follow it. If they make it a simple Uganda vs Uganda crime, they could simply use the anti-gay rhetoric as a tool for such actions for a crime against humanity. Still, thats a bit of a stretch.
Regardless, I don't think the Pastor is going anywhere or being punished. It will make him look bad and possibly bankrupt his organization ,so he can't keep doing what hes doing.
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:37 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
At the very least the court should hear the case
I read the ruling. I don't get the jurisdiction or standing decisions...though I am not going to spend time looking up the court's citation. I would be very leary of this action though. It appears as though the court is attributing actions of several people who are very high ranking in Uganda to allegations made in general about the US "gay movement" in a book he wrote and published in the US.
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:38 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Having "religious beliefs" doesn't exempt you from the law. So, if the religious want to complain, they should step up and fight the entire Act, not just the loss of their personal exemption
This your constitutional analysis? And people called the right crazy when they said forcing churches to marry homosexuals was the next step. Here is the argument that will be used.This post was edited on 1/20/14 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:39 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
What is relevant is that he published the accusation that homosexuals had a compulsion to abuse children.
You mean activists like Henry "harry" Hay?
Since when is that Libel. Can the Catholic Church sue people who run them down for the acts of some priests?
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:39 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You sure this is the path you want to go down?
Libel is simply the easiest concept to explain to laymen. If you'd like to argue that publishing a statement as fact that all homosexuals have the compulsion to abuse children, be my guest
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:40 pm to darkhorse
quote:
Since when is that Libel. Can the Catholic Church sue people who run them down for the acts of some priests?
Run them down? No.
If I published something that said, as fact, that all Catholic priests are pedophiles, absolutely.
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:41 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
This your constitutional analysis? And people called the right crazy when they said forcing churches to marry homosexuals was the next step. Here is the argument that will be used.
Marry? No. That's religious ceremony. Renting out a banquet hall? Yep, that's exactly the argument that will be made.
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:41 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Libel is simply the easiest concept to explain to laymen
Was libel alleged?
Posted on 1/20/14 at 1:43 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Marry? No. That's religious ceremony. Renting out a banquet hall? Yep, that's exactly the argument that will be made.
so the pastor wont be forced to say the nuptials, but the church will be forced to provide the venue? Sounds about right....
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News