Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Bad "Hate Crimes" Laws Silence Biblical Free Speech

I have been sounding the alarm about the dangers of "hate crimes" laws and how they would subsequently destroy free speech rights for quite some time now. I warned that such bogus laws would target, and attempt to completely destroy, the free speech rights of Christians who desire to protest against the militant agenda of homosexual radical groups.

Now, in this spurious, unconstitutional ruling, we see how radical, activist judges can illegally use their power in order to punish those with whom the secular progressives disagree! Can anyone agree that "I told you so" is in order here? In addition, as the article points out, we must ask what type of freedom of speech would be next to go?? What is this? Gay agenda anarchy or what??

This is more than just stifling of free speech. It is also an attempt for the judicial part of our government to side with the liberal left agenda and prohibit the use of the Bible and sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, while, at the same time promoting an illegal double whammy of pressing, and forcing, a kind of "thought police" mentality towards homosexual issues in public places.

This is outrageous, people!!

Could you imagine if a conservative judge (not that one actually ever would!) decided to squelch the free speech rights of the anti-war activists a few weeks ago because he/she didn't like their message?? Again, not that such a judge ever would do that, but can you now recognize how this illustrates the total hypocrisy of the wacky, liberal judge who just did that very same thing to the Christian group?

I sincerely hope that the Alliance Defense Fund gets ahold of this case on appeal. This was truly an absolute travesty of justice!



Wednesday, February 14, 2007


'Philadelphia 11' told 'gays' limited speech
Judge's ruling says permit allows biblical messages to be restricted

Posted: February 14, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2000>© 2007

A new federal court decision in the case of the Philadelphia Eleven could send Christians' free speech rights another step towards extinction, according to group members who have been told police officers had a right to silence their biblical messages at a public homosexual festival.

The decision came in a civil rights lawsuit brought by members of that team, including Repent America director Michael Marcavage, who sued the city and a homosexual-festival sponsor after group members were cleared of criminal charges for their actions at the 2004 "Gay Pride" public street festival in the downtown area.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Stengel dismissed their civil rights claim, concluding that a "permit" granted by the city to the homosexuals allowed police to silence the Christian activists' message on public streets.

"The law requires the police to control the crowd and to deal with those acting disorderly, not tell us that we're not permitted to be there," Marcavage said.

The judge's precedent would allow police to arrest anyone at any public gathering simply because they have what the judge called "a contrary message," raising speculation that Republicans could be arrested at a Democrat "festival" and competitors could be arrested at a commercially-sponsored "festival."

Marcavage called it a restriction on time, place and manner. But in the application to a commercial festival sponsorship, it could be assumed that having a discussion about Chevies at a Ford-sponsored event could be prohibited.

"You can't talk about Chevies; you couldn't even have Chevies parked on the streets," he said.
"It is without question that Judge Stengel's decision has set a precedent to eliminate the First Amendment rights of others by citing that a 'permitting scheme' can be used by police and event organizers to 'exclude persons expressing contrary messages' in public areas and at public events," Marcavage said.

"It is for this reason that his ruling is especially troubling and must be overturned," he continued. "Christians must be free to speak the truths of God's Word, warn the wicked, and to preach the Gospel in the public square without interference from government, and therefore, we will continue to battle for these God-given liberties by appealing this decision."

He said the appeal will be pursued in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, because otherwise Christians will be "left in a position here that will affect the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, because this decision will be binding."

Rev. Ted Pike, of the National Prayer Network, campaigns against such "hate crimes" and "hate speech" plans, and is warning there actually is a federal plan that could be used to make criminals of any Christian who speaks Biblical messages.

"The David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act is now before the House Judiciary Committee. If it's signed into federal law, the Philly Eleven incident won't be a freak injustice of American history. Instead, it will be the unheeded first raindrop of a downpour of anti-Christian arrests and lawsuits submerging Christianity in the years ahead," Pike has written.

He said the dismissal of the civil rights complaint means that "the Philly Eleven were wrong in exercising free speech in what had become a no-free speech zone."

He said the federal plan "would eventually allow government 'thought police' to push aside states' rights in law enforcement. Such laws would allow federal indictment of Christian 'haters' in every state of the Union…"

"It would become a federal crime … to show bias against protected groups [including] homosexuals. However, deviant groups such as witches, Satanists, pedophiles, abortionists, and even 'sinners' could quickly catch a ride on the bandwagon of federal protection from the 'hate' of biblically oriented criticism," he said.

The U.S. requirement that there is physical evidence of a crime before an arrest is made could be abandoned, and the only criteria of guilt in a hate crimes case could be "whether the feelings of a member of a federally protected group have been hurt," he said.

Pike's Hate Laws Exposed website is a primary resource center for information on "anti-hate" laws.

The decision by Stengel granted summary judgment to the city of Philadelphia and "Philly Pride Presents, Inc."

Siding with the defendants, Stengel said police were permitted to discriminate against the Christians because of "safety concerns" coupled with Philly Pride's permit from the city to hold the $10,000 taxpayer-funded celebration of homosexuality on public streets.

The judge couldn't escape the facts that "the activity in question took place in a public forum," and "there is no doubt that the venue for OutFest, a designated section of streets and sidewalks of Philadelphia, was a public place," but despite that he found that through the permit OutFest "was empowered to enforce the permit by excluding persons expressing contrary messages."
"Obviously, we are very disappointed," said Ted Hoppe, a lawyer for the Philadelphia Eleven. "We believe that the law clearly supports the rights of the plaintiffs in this case, as well as all individuals, to be able to engage in free speech activities in public streets and sidewalks.

"We do not believe," he continued, "that the fact that there was an event also taking place, even with a permit, diminishes that right."

"I cannot even begin to comprehend what Judge Stengel's thought process was in making this decision," said Marcavage. "This ruling was entirely unexpected considering that all the evidence has been overwhelmingly in our favor, complete with video documentation, not to mention the fact that all 11 of us were vindicated of any wrongdoing in criminal court."

The case dates back to 2004, as WND reported, when on Oct. 10, six men and five women with Repent America, now established as the Philadelphia Eleven, were arrested while ministering on the public streets and sidewalks of Philadelphia during the "OutFest."

Before they were arrested, they had been confronted by a mob of homosexuals calling themselves the "Pink Angels," who blew loud whistles and carried large pink signs to block the Christians' message and access to the event. Other screamed obscenities at the Christians.
Philadelphia officers, under the supervision of Chief Inspector James Tiano, a department "liaison to the gay and lesbian community," refused to take any action against the homosexuals over the harassment, instead taking the Christians to jail.

They were there 21 hours before Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham's office charged them with "Ethnic Intimidation" among other counts under the state's "hate crimes law."
Penalties could have ranged to 47 years in prison and fines of $90,000, but Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Pamela Dembe dismissed the criminal charges as being without merit. The civil rights lawsuit by the Christians then followed.

What many people found disturbing was the fact that months earlier, Stengel had refused to dismiss the OutFest organizer from the lawsuit, concluding that "Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts to infer a conspiracy between the Philly Pride Defendants and the other defendants … to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights."

At that time Hoppe noted that the city's actions "demonstrated a clear hostility toward Repent America and the content of their message."

Repent America is a group that "desires to be in the full Will of God and to adhere entirely to the teachings of the Bible."

"As Christians, we know that there is a literal hell and a lake of fire where the unsaved will burn for all eternity; therefore, we act upon this truth without reservation and GO OUT into the streets and communities of America declaring the Word of God and proclaiming the Good News. We must go out to where the sinners are. We must go to those who would never come into our churches – to the atheists, to the religious, to the self-righteous, to the God-hating and win their souls to Christ," its website says.

"For so long, as followers of Christ, we have allowed Satan to invade our communities through abortuaries, the entertainment and pornography industries, religious institutions, sexually perverse establishments, homosexual parades and other sin celebrations without a word from the Christians therein. God has called us to 'Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression…" (Isaiah 58.1)"

Related special offers:

Sen. Tom Coburn's "Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders into Insiders"
Get Ann's latest and hottest book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"
"The Gay Agenda: It's Dividing the Family, the Church, and a Nation"
"Betrayed by the Bench"
"The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"

Previous stories:

'Philly 11' win round against 'gay' group
Philly group to protest 'Outfest' again
Judge drops all charges against Philly Christians
Judge rules against Christians who preached to homosexuals
'Philly 5' win 1 in court
Christian group gets obscene, hateful messages
Hate-crimes law infringes on 1st Amendment?
Benefit concert planned for 'Philadelphia 5'
Motion filed for Philadelphia protesters
'Philadelphia 5' arrests like 'Christian Rodney King'
Homosexuals planned Christian harassment
17-year-old girl part of 'Philadelphia 5'
U.S. attorneys complicit in arrest of Christians?
Philadelphia accused of 'abuse of power'
Prosecutor: Bible is 'fighting words'
City will prosecute Christian protesters
'Philadelphia 11' fighting back
11 Christians arrested at homosexual event

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows. To view this item online, visit WorldNetDaily Article

HT: WorldNetDaily

[ 2/16/07 Update: Good News! The Alliance Defense Fund has agreed to appeal Philadelphia 11 free speech limits!]


In a related matter, just see what the "legalization" and implementation of "gay" marriage would result in if it was passed in all states. Massachusetts parents are having their rights taken away from them in regards to teaching homosexuality in the public schools.

Read this article about the ongoing David Parker case.

Note these excerpts:

The elementary curriculum promoting homosexuality, he said, was specifically intended to change a child's outlook of the world to something that his parents didn't teach him.

An ACLU lawyer, however, told the judge that "it is a tremendous bonus" for children to be given information of which their parents wouldn't approve, and that teaching children homosexuality when their parents' Biblical beliefs do not support that has nothing to do with a violation of religious freedom, according to the reports.

"David Parker's dilemma … threatens the parental rights and religious freedom of every Massachusetts parent, and indirectly every parent in America," said John Haskins of the Parents' Rights Coalition.

"As the Lexington schools themselves are arguing, the state's right to force pro-homosexuality indoctrination on other people's children arises directly from former Gov. Mitt Romney's nakedly false and unconstitutional declaration that homosexual marriage is now legal."

Note how similar arguments used by homosexual activists in front of The European Human Rights Court led to terrible results against a family in Germany:

The arguments on behalf of homosexuals were remarkably similar to a recent European court's conclusion.

The European Human Rights Court several months ago concluded in a case involving similar objections that parents do not have an "exclusive" right to lead their children's education and any parental "wish" to have their children grow up without adverse influences "could not take priority over compulsory school attendance."

That court said a German family had no right to provide homeschooling for their children. The family had argued the public school endangered their children's religion beliefs and violated the family's Christian faith.

Irrelevant, said the court. "The parents' right to education did not go as far as to deprive their children of that experience," it said.

"The (German) Federal Constitutional Court stressed the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society," the European ruling said.

In Germany, the situation has continued to deteriorate for homeschoolers, with one 15-year-old student recently being taken into custody by a SWAT team and ordered by a judge to a psychiatric ward of a hospital because she was being homeschooled. WND's latest update on that situation has confirmed authorities now have removed the teen from the psych ward, and she has been taken to a location that is being withheld from her parents and lawyer.

Appalled yet???

Check out these previous stories, too:

Previous stories:
'Gay' groups: We have rights to your children!
Families file federal suit over 'gay' readings
Teacher reads 2nd-graders story about 'gay' wedding
District lifts ban on parent over pro-'gay' book
Charges dropped against jailed dad
Trial over pro-'gay' book set to begin
No notice to parents in 'diversity' classes
Dad on trial over homosexual book
Father faces trial over school's 'pro-gay' book


Andrew said...

I think this will be overturned on appeal. It seems to be a fairly clear case of free speech.

It reminds me of those Westboro idiots...

Paul said...

Have you asked yourself why this is a major issue to you - the sexuality of other people?

I'm straight, but the sanest couple I happen to know are two lesbians. One has two beautiful daughters from a previous marriage - both daughters are terrific looking blue eyed blonde heterosexuals, each is happily married with kids. They're a wonderful, close family - the two daughters are very close to their mom, mom and her partner of 20 years are very involved with the grandkids...

I'm just not seeing heterosexuals or heterosexual marriage as under threat from homosexuality. It's under threat from plenty of other stuff, just look at the divorce rate...

ebsfwan said...

Run are about to be flamed. :)

Christine doesn't care about the silent majority of gay people who are honest, decent folks. She thinks they are all perverts and deviants and won't listen to any evidence to the contrary as some plonkers 2500 years ago didn't like it.

Like you, the only gay people I know are extremely decent folk.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Andrew,

Welcome to Talkwisdom!

I take it that although you think that the ruling will be overturned on appeal, you disagree with the message that is being shared by the Repent America group?

To each there own...

One huge difference between the Westboro group and Repent America is that RA preaches the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

How do I know this?

Because the Westboro group is an aberrant cult that does not preach the genuine gospel of Jesus Christ. They offer no message of mercy and grace towards homosexual individuals, even if such people express genuine repentance. They negate the gospel by not affording any chance of forgiveness, (through Christ's sacrificial death and subsequent resurrection to life) for homosexual sinners.

Of course, no matter how compassionately the Gospel is shared, it's not a popular message today. Jesus warned us that this would be so. But it is the truth, nonetheless.

Christinewjc said...

Hello Paul,

Welcome to Talkwisdom!

You said, "Have you asked yourself why this is a major issue to you - the sexuality of other people?"

That isn't really the issue. The issue is whether or not parents should have the right to share or shield their young children from homosexual indoctrination in public schools.

No one is telling homosexual people how to live their lives in their own homes. But, ironically, such rights are not being afforded to heterosexual families who desire to adhere to their deep moral and religious Christian beliefs.

There are certain issues that affect all of us and I think that it is essential for parents to have the right to freedom of religious upbringing of their own children. They should have the right to freedom of expression about moral issues in the upbringing of their children. They should have the freedom of speech right to teach their own children that homosexual behavior is immoral, unnatural, sinful and an aberrant form of sexual behavior that can cause disease and early death. They also have the moral duty to teach their children that we are all sinners in need of the Savior, Jesus Christ. Therefore, we address the sin but show compassion towards the sinner.

It is not the everyday lesbians (as you described in your comment) that worry or affect me or other traditional Christian parents. It is the rabid, militant, homosexual activists that have as their goal to push their indoctrinating agenda upon our children without first getting parental consent or even giving them the choice to give permission regarding what their own children learn about homosexual issues in school.

What is truly bad about such indoctrination techniques being used in schools today, is that they are only presenting the liberal left side of the arguments. I know for a fact that a once gay, now straight person who left homosexual behavior would never be allowed to share his/her story or experiences with school children. Moral objections and concerns towards what is being taught by gay activist (or supporting) teachers in the schools are forbidden to be presented!

Is that fair and balanced? Of course not!

ebsfwan said...

Andrew is me...logged in with the wrong account. I have one I use for work related stuff and one for my private blogging.

I didn't notice till now. ;)

Which is worse? To be gay and a Christian. Or to be rich and a Christian?

If I recall correctly the only person the apostles killed was the rich husband and wife team who lied about giving all their goods to the Church/poor.

Jaded said...

This has absolutely nothing to do with the sexuality of other people, as Paul suggested. This is about our basic right to free speech as afforded us by the Constitution of the United States.

This partiuclar group of homosexuals had every right to celebrate at OutFest. However, the group of Christians had every right to voice their opposition to the event. People are mistaken that free speech means speech without any repercussion, opposition or consequences. That is not the case. You have the right to say what you want. You don't have the right to expect that no one will disagree with you.

I hope this case is overturned on appeal. In the isolated case the brought the controversy about, the issue involves homosexuals and Christians. But, the ramifications of this decision could be so far reaching and so dangerous that we'll all be in trouble.

In an effort to promote tolerance in this nation, we have done the exact opposite.

limpy99 said...

Actually Jaded, that's not quite correct. It is well-settled law that the state, (or Philadelphia, as the case may be), has the right to issue "time-place-manner" restrictions on a person's right to free speech. If I want to have a parade I can't run it through a hospital. If RA wants to protest against homosexuals, they can't do it at a block party full of homosexuals. I would hope that the potential for conflict would be obvious.

No one has an absolute right to free speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater; you can't stand outside an Army recruiting office and suggest that war is immoral and therefore the angry mob listening to you would be well-advised to burn down all recruiting offices. And you don't necessarily have the right to go to an area that a group has reserved for a party, (as near as I can tell for themselves), and tell them they're going to hell if they don't repent. The state has an interest in keeping the peace, and in this case, I don't see anything to get that worked up about.

If there were a situation where RA wanted to have a parade where they walked around waving "repent" signs, and they were denied a permit, then that would be a problem. But when their goal is to confront another group holding a legitimate permit, to me the state is OK in preventing that.

Christinewjc said...


I sure like the "Andrew" screen name better. Easier to remember, spell, and type!

Your second comment shows me that either you haven't read much of the dozens of posts that I have previously posted on the "gay" Christian debate, or, you have just not understood what I have written.

Joe Brummer said...

Could you explain for me how adding sexual orientation to the hate crime laws will silence christians when adding race did nothing to silence the KKK?

Also, Many states such as mine already have hate crime laws that cover sexual orientation. In none of those states has it been used to silence anyone, not can it trump the first amendment. Can you explain for me why you would spread such rumors and fear towards gays when those thing are beyond obviously not fact?

I would be happy to hear you answers. Please explain to me why you are using the philly 11 as heroes when the fact is they where prevoking a riot? They were not silence for the message, but their delivery method. The facts show that clearly.

These fear tactics against gays equal nothing more than a call to arms which some will take and it will be violence for GLBT people. If that isn't your goal then I would ask you rethink your delivery of this can email me your responses, I am willing to

Jaded said...

No, you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. But, if you are on a public street, using my tax dollars, celebrating something that I don't agree with, I have every right to say so. If you don't want to face opposition, don't parade around on the street.

I say "you" in a collective sense. I don't have a problem with OutFest, much to Christine's dismay, I'm sure. And while I don't generally care for the "in your face" version of Christianity that groups like RA adhere to, I don't see why they can't voice their difference of opinion. If you choose to celebrate something openly, on a public street, you can't expect that everyone will accept it as appropriate.

You can't have it both ways. You can't have a group of "Pink Angels" hurling insults at the RA group without also arresting them.

Again, this particular situation involved the GLBT community. The repercussions of the ruling run far deeper than that. In my area of NJ, there is a KKK rally every year. It takes place about an hour from here. They get their permits, hold a parade, the whole thing. There are always people there holding signs the speak out against the KKK. I see nothing wrong with this. The KKK has the right to voice their opinions on a public street. They don't have the right to expect that everyone will be happy with it.

Christinewjc said...

Diss a 'gay'? Go to jail!

Activists warn Christians targeted under new 'hate crimes' proposal

I think that what the Concerned Women for America spokesperson said speaks volumes...and tells us why giving sexual orientation special "hate" rights is a foolish concept:

...said the bill "sends the message that it is more hateful to kill a homosexual than a little child."

Christinewjc said...

This article shows what absolute lunacy we are headed for with "hate crimes" laws.

Christinewjc said...

Jaded stated, "I hope this case is overturned on appeal. In the isolated case the brought the controversy about, the issue involves homosexuals and Christians. But, the ramifications of this decision could be so far reaching and so dangerous that we'll all be in trouble.

In an effort to promote tolerance in this nation, we have done the exact opposite."

That is exactly the problem that comes along when we make a certain type of person and/or behavior more protected by law than another.

You are correct. The over promotion of tolerance towards certain groups has gone too far. Thus, it has, in fact, achieved intolerance for, and towards, other groups.

Want some examples?
1. Intolerance towards Pro-life advocates
2. Intolerance towards Christian believers who hold to the Biblically based, religious belief that homosexual behavior is sexual sin, should not be taught as normal, natural, healthy or desirable to our children.
3. Intolerance towards the views of formerly gay (or ex-gay) people, (especially when such change occurs because of spiritual conversion to Christianity) who preach that change is possible.
4. Intolerance towards Christians in general, and Christian beliefs in particular. (Remember Rosie O'Donnell's rant against Christians on The View? She equated the Christian "Right" with the Taliban! Did she ever have to apologize? No. Did she lose her job? No. Was this a hateful rant? Yes. Did many people think so? Yes. Again, did she answer calls for an apology? No. Again, did the MSM play up her hate filled rant as much as the basketball player who recently was all over the news because he stated that he hates gays on a radio program? No. Do we now see the media bias when it comes to hateful comments being shared on the radio or on TV? Yes.

I think that what both of them said was horrible. But the fact that one gets away with their rant while the other was severely punished (didn't the former NBA player lose out on endorsements?)for his rant.

Why is this so? Precisely because the speech of a lesbian woman against Christians is praised, applauded and considered PC by the liberal, left-wing media and people in this country; while the basketball player's rant is shunned, booed, and considered appalling.

In my book, BOTH should have been equally shunned, booed and considered appalling!

However, according to our constitution, do both have the protected speech right to say what they did? Yes. Even speech that we disagree with is to be protected.

In this example, what I think is worse, as well as a key point in this debate, is that the NBA player apologized, while Rosie never did. Yet, he gets punished while she doesn't.

I think that this ranks as a perfect example of what Jaded said in her statement above.

Christinewjc said...


The answers to your questions are in the articles I posted as well as Jaded's excellent comments.

One huge difference between this debate and the analogy that you gave about the KKK is the fact that the KKK and their supporters aren't currently in our public schools spreading their extremist ideology like the homosexual activists have been doing.

At the Outfest event, the group called "The Pink Angels" were everything but "angels". They were spewing hate-filled rants at the Christians, physically blocking their way and covering up their signs. RA were trying to share the Gospel of Christ with people there. But because of the upside down "Alice in Wonderland" world that we now live in, the Christians were jailed! You cannot deny the fact that favoritism was shown to the gay group by the police on the scene. Apparently, they didn't like Repent America's message either and made the choice to jail them rather than the Pink Nazis whose speech was apparently protected over and above the free speech rights of the Repent America group.

Another thing Joe, it has been my experience here and on other blogs that you claim to desire to listen to the Christian point of view, but you continually ignore what the real message is truly about. It is as the Bible says, "forever listening, but not hearing."

There is more involved in this debate than what is seen on the surface of the arguments. It is a spiritual battle that is going on and, ultimately, the souls of homosexual people are at stake.

Jaded said...

Wow, Christine... this is completely uncharted territory for us! We can disagree about parts of a topic, yet agree completely about others. I think we've come a long way, you and I.

I have a problem with the entire concept of "hate crimes." Laws already exist to punish certain crimes without adding yet another quantifier to it. A murder is a murder, no matter why it was commited. It doesn't matter if you murdered someone because of his/her race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. Is the murder of a woman any less heinous than the murder of a homosexual? No. Is it worse to murder a minority than to murder a child? No. In my opinion, every murder is a hate crime. Every rape is a hate crime. Every assault is a hate crime. I highly doubt that someone who commits those crimes does so with a loving heart.

Laws already exist to protect certain groups from discrimination, and those are necessary laws. Without them, any number of people might not be able to find work, ride the bus, hold public office and so on. But, the more we dwell on our differences, the farther apart we remain as people. It's hard to say "protect me because I'm different" and "accept me because I'm a person like you" in the same breath. They are contradictory statements. One divides, one bridges gaps.

So which is it? Should we dwell primarily on the things that make us different, or should we find common ground as human beings? The longer we continue say that one murder is worse than another, the longer we breed resentment and distrust. To say that the murder of a homosexual is worse than the murder of a child because it's a "hate crime" does nothing but divide us even farther. The murder of a homosexual is just as horrific, because a human life was lost. Period.

God said "You shall not kill." I don't think He meant it was worse to harm one group than another. He just said don't kill. Anyone.

limpy99 said...

Christine, I knew you'd play the Tim Hardaway card at some point. Yes, he did lose his job with the NBA. That's part of the risks of free speech. Timmy can rant all he wants about hatign gays, and the government can't do a thing about it. But the NBA, as a private employer, is free to tell Timmy exactly what they will and won't tolerate from their employees.

And they did.

Jaded, as I understood the article, the RA folks were acquitted of any criminal wrongdoing, so there free speech rights were upheld in that regard. Where they lost, (and if I'm wrong I'm sure Christine will clarify), was when they went to get their legal fees back, claiming that the city had restricted their free speech rights by not allowing them to protest the block party. Judge Stengel seems to say that the city's restrictions were a reasonable "Time-Place-Manner" rule. My point is that this is a pretty well-settled area of the law. The state does retain the right to limit speech to a time/place/manner that won't result in a riot. For the record, I don't agree with the Pink Angels either.

Christinewjc said...

Limpy said, "Christine, I knew you'd play the Tim Hardaway card at some point. Yes, he did lose his job with the NBA. That's part of the risks of free speech. Timmy can rant all he wants about hatign gays, and the government can't do a thing about it. But the NBA, as a private employer, is free to tell Timmy exactly what they will and won't tolerate from their employees.

And they did."

Here's a letter about Hardaway and homosexuals to consider in this debate.

I like how the writer ended it:

"Tim Hardaway played on the Golden State Warriors for years. They are based in the San Francisco Bay Area, the forefront of the gay advocacy movement. Could he have seen many peculiarities and aberrations that shaped his ideas?

Brian Henson

P.S. ABC and Barbara Wawa are employers who show their extreme bias through what they WILL tolerate from the hate-filled anti-Christian rhetoric spewing mouth of Rosie O'Donnell.

What do you call that, Limpy? Chic Christian-bashing Clout?

Joe Brummer said...

Actually, it is not a spiritual battle, it is not a battle at all. Battles imply war and violence. Each time you use language like that you engage in that call to arms I have spoken about often. That call to arms leads to violence.

Spiritual battles are something everyone should refuse to take any part in. Looking at the Middle East and the "Spiritual Battles" makes it more than clear that spiritual battles cannot be won. Legal one's can.

Gay rights are not a spiritual battle. It is a civil rights battle, a legal battle.

You are correct, I am always willing to listen to any Christian viewpoint as long as that view respects that I may disagree. Your statemet implies that I don't agree with Christian therefore I miss their message, I don't miss it at all, I whole heartly disagree with them. THat doesn't mean I don't want to hear their view.

Christinewjc said...


The term "battle" does not always indicate a war that leads only to violence. Battling the ideas, ideology or agendas of others more specifically can mean:

A protracted controversy or struggle: won the battle of the budget.

An intense competition: a battle of wits.

A match between two combatants: trial by battle.

I can "battle" against your ideas without using (or advocatine) any violence to do so.

There are concepts that are worthy to fight against; such as battling an enemy; battling cancer etc. and such battles are good to win.

You said, "Gay rights are not a spiritual battle."

Homosexual indoctrination, advocacy, and the re-defining of the term marriage ARE spiritual battles to the Christian believer. You may not look at it that way (and/or refuse to see it as such), but millions of Christians would wholeheartedly disagree with your viewpoint.

Joe said, "You are correct, I am always willing to listen to any Christian viewpoint as long as that view respects that I may disagree. Your statemet implies that I don't agree with Christian therefore I miss their message, I don't miss it at all, I whole heartly disagree with them. THat doesn't mean I don't want to hear their view."

Joe, let's be honest now...OK? If you have already heard the Christian message, have already decided to wholeheartedly disagree with that message, then why would you continue to want to hear any Christian believer's view...including mine?

Have you been reading my blog much over the last 2 1/2 years? If so, then you should already know my position...loud and clear.

Arguing for the sake of...well...just arguing is non-productive for both of us.

Let's take a completely different subject to illustrate. As an example, it would be similar to you saying to me, "I don't believe in Creation and have totally made up my mind about evolution, but go ahead and share your view anyway." What would be the point?

On the issue of homosexuality, you see only a "civil" rights legal battle. Just because you don't believe that there is a spiritual battle going on behind the scenes for the hearts, souls, minds and spirits of people doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The Bible is filled with examples of this fact.

You, my friend, are living in a matrix of the flesh. It is all that you recognize, live for, and abide by. Therefore, as I mentioned before, you are "forever listening but not hearing" the things concerning the Spirit of God. No one can make you see it, either. The choice is yours.

All must answer Jesus' question, "Who do you say that I am?"

Get that answer correct and then the scales will fall from your eyes and you will no longer be blind, but will see the "things concerning the spirit" with new eyes.

Christinewjc said...

Here is a link to a recording that describes why the "hate crimes" law in Pennsylvania is a bad law and why the national "hate crimes law" - H.R. 254, needs to be defeated.

A bill introduced on Capitol Hill, H.R. 254, The David Ray Hate Crime Prevention Act, could federalize statutes like those used to silence and imprison 11 Christians in Philadelphia. Martha Kleder spoke with Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues and Michael Marcavage, director of about this bill and the case of the Philadelphia 11 which is still in the courts.