Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 68

Thread: New LGBT Protection Law In San Antonio Criminalizes Faith

  1. #1

    New LGBT Protection Law In San Antonio Criminalizes Faith

    I know this is a hot topic right now..... But correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't this about the first amendment rights of free speech?

    New LGBT Protection Law In San Antonio Criminalizes Faith
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/wat...nalizes-faith/
    A new law in San Antonio that protects LGBT persons from discrimination criminalizes what it calls ‘bias’ against homosexuality. Christians in San Antonio say they are fully awake now after this assault on their religious liberty and they say they will fight back…

    Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession.
    ~ George Washington



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Separation of church and state.
    Inactive

    List of Liberty-minded candidates for Congress in 2014
    Party: Libertarian (since registration) / Religion: none (Ignostic)

    “If while on your way you meet no one your equal or better, steadily continue on your way alone. There is no fellowship with fools.”
    ― Dhammapada, v. 61

    "Asking why there are no Libertarian countries is akin to asking why there are no Atheist Theocracies." - #AncapJackal

  4. #3
    How is it denying them religious liberty? (didn't Jesus say to love everybody?) (Judge not lest ye be judged?)

    Their faith is criminal?
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 09-19-2013 at 09:11 PM.

  5. #4
    You don't want separation of church and state. You want abolition of religion.
    "The Patriarch"

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    How is it denying them religious liberty? (didn't Jesus say to love everybody?)
    He never said don't disagree with anybody.
    "The Patriarch"

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Smart3 View Post
    Separation of church and state.
    Is in the Constitution NOWHERE!!
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  8. #7
    lol that news segment wasn't bias at all in any way....

  9. #8
    Can someone detail this law for me? I'm not entirely sure what it's proposing. In what way are people being denied the freedom to express their religious opposition for homosexuality?



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    lol that news segment wasn't bias at all in any way....
    Yes.......?
    "The Patriarch"

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Antischism View Post
    Can someone detail this law for me? I'm not entirely sure what it's proposing. In what way are people being denied the freedom to express their religious opposition for homosexuality?
    That would be "bias" as defined by the new law.

    Thus, a criminal act took place.

  13. #11
    Just another day in AmeriKa, where people are more than willing to use whatever means they see fit, to shut other people up.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    That would be "bias" as defined by the new law.

    Thus, a criminal act took place.
    So according to this law, if people decide to protest and fly "God Hates ****" signs in public, they would be arrested?

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Just another day in AmeriKa, where people are more than willing to use whatever means they see fit, to shut other people up.
    Seems to me like AF nailed it. Why does everyone have to agree on everything? Why do people have to have everyone agree with them. I think the whole country has just become codependent and cares too damn much about what everyone else thinks. It should be none of my business what other people think about me...... and why should I care?
    Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession.
    ~ George Washington

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Antischism View Post
    So according to this law, if people decide to protest and fly "God Hates ****" signs in public, they would be arrested?
    What I understood from the video...... was that expressing any kind of disagreement with the lifestyle itself is a misdemeanor and can equal a hefty fine.
    Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession.
    ~ George Washington

  17. #15
    One description of the law:
    http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.c...-to-gays.html/
    The ordinance extends protections against denying someone housing, jobs or public accommodations because of their sexual orientation. The ordinance is modeled after provisions already in effect in Dallas, Fort Worth, El Paso, Houston and Austin.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Antischism View Post
    Can someone detail this law for me? I'm not entirely sure what it's proposing. In what way are people being denied the freedom to express their religious opposition for homosexuality?
    Don't you have a computer in front of you?

    http://onenewsnow.com/culture/2013/0...s#.UfP8vI2kq2e

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/FOCISpecial...+Ordinance.pdf
    "The Patriarch"



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    I'm currently working out and quickly browsing the site between sets. Thanks, I'll check those out when I'm done.

  21. #18
    Thanks for the link. Looks like it actually exampts religious groups:
    A religious corporation, association, society or educational institution or an
    educational organization operated, supervised or controlled in whole or in
    substantial part by a religious corporation, association or society does not violate
    the non-discrimination policy by limiting employment or giving a preference in
    employment to members of the same religion.
    Sec. 2-
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 09-19-2013 at 09:50 PM.

  22. #19
    Sec. 2-552. – Appointed Officials, Boards and Commissions.
    (a) Appointments to Boards and Commissions.
    When making appointments to boards and commissions, the City shall not
    discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual
    orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or handicapdisability.
    (b) Prior Discriminatory Acts.
    No person shall be appointed to a position if the City Council finds that such person
    has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated
    a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of
    race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran
    status, age, or handicapdisability.
    (c) Discrimination by Appointed Officials – Malfeasance.
    (1) No appointed official or member of a board or commission shall engage in
    discrimination or demonstrate a bias, by word or deed
    , against any person,
    group of persons, or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national
    origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or
    handicapdisability, while serving in such public position.
    This is very vague language. To demonstrate bias in word or deed could simply mean to disagree. If someone asks you if your opinion and you give it....... you could be in trouble.

    (2) Violation of this standard shall be considered malfeasance in office, and the
    City Council shall be authorized to take action as provided by law to remove the
    offending person from office.
    If I am understanding this correctly, if you hold public office...... and are a Christian and someone asks your opinion on homosexuality, you are not allowed to answer honestly lest you be ousted?????
    Last edited by Miss Annie; 09-19-2013 at 09:36 PM.
    Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession.
    ~ George Washington

  23. #20
    Wait, so it's okay that they're banning discrimination vs. nationality, race, color, religion, age, handicap, gender, and veteran status, but not sexual preference?

    How consistent.

    The reporting in that vid was terrible, btw.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    Wait, so it's okay that they're banning discrimination vs. nationality, race, color, religion, age, handicap, gender, and veteran status, but not sexual preference?

    How consistent.

    The reporting in that vid was terrible, btw.
    I don't think anyone here disagrees with you that they're laughably inconsistent. Statist Christians may have brought this on themselves. Its still wrong.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Thanks for the link. Looks like it actually exampts religious groups:
    I read that too. But there is so much mumbo jumbo in front of it it's hard to tell if it means anything.
    "The Patriarch"

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Miss Annie View Post
    This is very vague language. To demonstrate bias in word or deed could simply mean to disagree. If someone asks you if your opinion and you give it....... you could be in trouble.



    If I am understanding this correctly, if you hold public office...... and are a Christian and someone asks your opinion on homosexuality, you are not allowed to answer honestly lest you be ousted?????
    That what it sounds like.
    "The Patriarch"

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I don't think anyone here disagrees with you that they're laughably inconsistent. Statist Christians may have brought this on themselves. Its still wrong.
    Of course, it's initiation of violence--typical statism.

    But the fact that these idiots are only objecting to one ban, as if to suggest this legislation is exclusively targeting their religion, to play the victim card... the whole premise of their complaint is ridiculously laughable. They're just as in the wrong as those passing the legislation--they want the protection the legislation offers them (race, religion, etc), but they don't want the same offered to those they disapprove of (homosexuals). They're basically trying to wield the gun in the room, but they're making it out like they're the ones the gun is being pointed at.

    What a bunch of ignorant frauds. I have minimal sympathy for any of them.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    They don't have TV coverage of city council votes in San An? There are a million people there. I guess there are a million clueless people. That's so sad. What a waste of a population...
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith and stuff View Post
    They don't have TV coverage of city council votes in San An? There are a million people there. I guess there are a million clueless people. That's so sad. What a waste of a population...
    In the video they said they had a 7 % turnout last election.......
    "The Patriarch"

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    Of course, it's initiation of violence--typical statism.

    But the fact that these idiots are only objecting to one ban, as if to suggest this legislation is exclusively targeting their religion, to play the victim card... the whole premise of their complaint is ridiculously laughable. They're just as in the wrong as those passing the legislation--they want the protection the legislation offers them (race, religion, etc), but they don't want the same offered to those they disapprove of (homosexuals). They're basically trying to wield the gun in the room, but they're making it out like they're the ones the gun is being pointed at.

    What a bunch of ignorant frauds. I have minimal sympathy for any of them.
    While I don't claim absolute knowledge in this regard, as a Baptist I think I can give you some indication of how conservative Christians think. And I don't think you're being completely fair, even though I sympathize with some of your points.

    I have seen a few radicals, mostly on the internet, who actually do want to criminalize homosexuality. I can respect the theonomic reconstructionists, even though I disagree with them, because at least they are logically consistent, namely, they get their laws from the Bible and they use divine command theory to defend them. I don't agree, but at least they have a (relatively, at any rate) theological basis for what sins they do and do not want to criminalize.

    And, if you abstract from the social issues, some theonomists are quite libertarian on fiscal, foreign, and non-moral personal liberty issues. Gary North comes to mind.

    I've never met anyone in person who took that position, but I've engaged with some on the internet. There's at least one on here, and several on another forum I frequent.

    There are some people who want to recriminalize homosexuality, but are not theonomists. Again, I haven't met any in real life, but there are plenty on the internet (someone from my church MIGHT hold this position, I'm not sure, but its not something he talks about all the time. I'm not even sure what his position is). this is mostly an irrational position based on "ick" factor, IMO.

    But the vast majority of Christians, even more conservative Protestants such as Baptists, don't want to recriminalize homosexuality. There's PLENTY to criticize the church for, but this isn't one of them.

    Their main issue, in most cases, is the idea of the State condoning, not merely allowing a behavior they find distasteful.

    Personally, as an anarchist who thinks government has no right to define marriage at all, I wouldn't even bother to vote one way or another on "Defining marriage as being between a man and woman" type votes. I really don't feel like I have a leg in that fight. Part of me hopes the government will sanction gay marriage, in hopes that it will wake conservative Christians up and help them to realize that government is not their friend. This wouldn't be a particularly rational reason to start opposing statism, but it doesn't really matter anyway.

    I'm not the only one even in my church that holds certain parts of the 1964 CRA to be illegitmate. My dad, the pastor, agrees with me, as does at least one other person in the church. I suspect we aren't the only three either, but I don't exactly go around asking people about this either. While politics does occasionally come up, ultimately I go to church to worship God, not to discuss politics.

    Now, regarding the hypocrites that you describe, even still, yes there's a lot of hypocricy. But I don't think its as universal as you seem to think. And I think many of them are just ignorant and believing what they were taught, rather than actively and deliberately saying that they want to control other people's rights to discriminate at gunpoint.

    Don't get me wrong here, Cabal, you bring up some legitimate issues here. I just don't think its as simple as "They just want to control everybody." If anything, that's more true on the international stage than the domestic, but even then, its not universal and rarely deliberate.

    As with all of these things, Laurence Vance is a pretty good antidote
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  32. #28
    @Miss Annie-

    You really diss Christians alot, especially for being one.. LOL
    I was referring to a subset of Christians, not all of them. But even still, I was really only referring to what Cabal brought up first. Cabal was calling them out for being inconsistent. I was simply saying that, yes, many of them are inconsistent, many did bring it on themselves, but its still wrong.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    In the video they said they had a 7 % turnout last election.......
    Some dead guy once said "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." It seems they have neither in San Antonio.
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    Wait, so it's okay that they're banning discrimination vs. nationality, race, color, religion, age, handicap, gender, and veteran status, but not sexual preference?

    How consistent.

    The reporting in that vid was terrible, btw.
    It seems like the libertarian, free market position is that since an employer owns his or her company and property, the employer should have the right to not hire an employee for any reason whatsoever, including all of the reasons you listed above.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. New Zealand criminalizes Internet trolling
    By timosman in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-16-2015, 06:02 PM
  2. Liberia Criminalizes Alternative Ebola Treatments
    By presence in forum Health Freedom
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-02-2014, 06:42 AM
  3. Japan Enacts Secrets Law - Criminalizes Investigative Journalism
    By DamianTV in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-07-2013, 06:01 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-25-2013, 06:40 PM
  5. Latest From the Hill: Congress Criminalizes the Right to Free Assembly
    By John F Kennedy III in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-03-2012, 02:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •