Oh Yes; Tally;
Someone should not have the "right" not to be revolted..Then you would agree with me that these "hate speech" laws should be thrown out..Yes ?
You see, the 1st amendment is supposed to be in effect..but liberal judges have caused the negation of the 1st amendment in cases where causes "dear to their hearts",
would be offended..
I expect the 1st amendment would be free speech, except for danger(i.e.fire in a crowd) and lies...but the same judges allow lies..if it is a "public figure"..whaaat !
You are right here
ironglow - I absolutely do agree with you on this one. I will say again: no one has a right "not to be offended, revolted, annoyed etc..." And that being said, it is obvious that there is rampant hypocrisy in the system when judges rule a particular way because of something "dear to their hearts" rather than the Constitution or the law.
And perhaps you could (since you brought up the 1st amendment) have a look at the part about peaceful assembly. And when "they" don't do it peacefully, "they" are subject to the same laws of trespass, disturbing the peace, littering, or whatever, as anyone else.
The following statement of yours is completely hippocritical: " A few short years ago, the homosexuals ganged up and had a "march" on Washington DC, tied up streets and used, abused and littered the long mall between the Washington monument & the capital building..
don't recall anyone suing to stop them from using public facilities to voice their opinion." (my italics)
Who exactly did they
gang up on? What exactly is the problem with
a "march" on Washington DC?
The reason nobody (not even you it seems) sued to stop them from using public facilities to voice their opinion is because
that very thing is protected by the first amendment!!! As much as you might hate it, the Constitution is for everyone, not just people you approve of! I notice nobody sued (not even you) when they
used and abused... the long mall. What law applies? Is it a sex crime - abuse of a street? Just curious.
And while we are on the subject of how considerate Christians are:
"A) I have heard no cases of Christians breaking into homosexual's meetings or conclaves, but we saw them on the news..invading churches and disrupting services !
B) I have heard of no Christians infiltrating "gay" organizations and mocking their proceedings.but recently we saw footage of the gays disguising themselves to partake of the communion elements in a Catholic Church !" Just because you haven't heard of any doesn't mean they don't happen!
Didn't a bunch of so-called Christians disrupt a number of military funerals recently claiming that queers in the military were the reason the Iraq war was such a mess? Haven't "Christians" mocked, protested and disrupted many "gay" events. (Answer to both is
yes by the way) If you have any interest in truth, just google anti-gay protests (there are 279,000 hits). Now not all of them are about Christians but there are plenty to offset your silliness about how pure and non-annoying all Christians are. If you can label all gays as disruptive or underhanded, why can't the same be done for all Christians?
Gays, Christians, feminists, gun-owners, vegetarians, hippies, veterans, etc. are all allowed by the First Amendment to peacefully demonstrate. Even though I do not completely share any groups' beliefs, nor support all their goals, I absolutely defend their right to express them. The point is that when one group, exercises a Constitutional right, expresses a position, demands redress, all groups have the same right. Whether your or I approve of the group is irrelevant. On the other hand, whether the rights described in the First, or any other Amendment, are actually supported by politicians or "activist judges" is certainly arguable.
I can even agree with you here. Though I do agree with your positions on the First and Second Amendments (and maybe more) I don't agree with
everything you say.
You seem so attached to the "morality" and the "biblical rightness" of the issue, that you keep missing the most serious and insidious and constitutional part. The biggest problem with the California Supreme Court decision is that an "activist" court basically ignored a legitimate vote by the citizens of that state, who with a clear majority, chose to not approve same-sex marriages. And that, as I pointed out in a previous post, is the real danger in all of this.
I will not say the majority is always "right" about everything, but whether they are "right" or not, it is extremely dangerous for a liberty-based society to have courts reversing freely held votes.