Rick Warren and Gays - Most of The News is False

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by p.Johanna on December 20, 2008 at 1:37am

I did e-mail his church yesterday asking them to clarify the comment or at least explain to me how that comment could have been made by a pastor that is stated to be "powerful", i'm waiting but i won't hold my breath.

Coach Sappho said:

neither i nor Rick Warren is allowed via 'free speech' to demean people on the basis of age, gender, race, religion, etc., in fact, he could do so in private, but if he did so publicly, on this tv interview or as an employer or landlord, he would be thrown off the air, sued or be charged with breaking the law.

so why is it ok for folks like Warren to spout his demeaning characterizations about gay people and say it's legal and freedom of speech to be able to do so?

perhaps some gay californians can launch a lawsuit against him for this languaging/defaming??? or perhaps we can call for his 'ouster' from TV???? i know, dream on...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Genia Stevens on December 20, 2008 at 1:44am

I have to look up free speech laws as they relate to the church. I think they're protected under a law designed to protect ministers from being sued for hate speech. I remember reading that somewhere a few months ago. I'll find it.

Coach Sappho said:

neither i nor Rick Warren is allowed via 'free speech' to demean people on the basis of age, gender, race, religion, etc., in fact, he could do so in private, but if he did so publicly, on this tv interview or as an employer or landlord, he would be thrown off the air, sued or be charged with breaking the law.

so why is it ok for folks like Warren to spout his demeaning characterizations about gay people and say it's legal and freedom of speech to be able to do so?

perhaps some gay californians can launch a lawsuit against him for this languaging/defaming??? or perhaps we can call for his 'ouster' from TV???? i know, dream on...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by p.Johanna on December 20, 2008 at 1:48am

yes, they are protected. i noticed on dateline that he didn't acknowledge his comment verbally, he nodded that he had equated it. the comment was recorded and aired and posted and transcripted on a religious blog, or site.

SistersTalk said:

I have to look up free speech laws as they relate to the church. I think they're protected under a law designed to protect ministers from being sued for hate speech. I remember reading that somewhere a few months ago. I'll find it.

Coach Sappho said:

neither i nor Rick Warren is allowed via 'free speech' to demean people on the basis of age, gender, race, religion, etc., in fact, he could do so in private, but if he did so publicly, on this tv interview or as an employer or landlord, he would be thrown off the air, sued or be charged with breaking the law.

so why is it ok for folks like Warren to spout his demeaning characterizations about gay people and say it's legal and freedom of speech to be able to do so?

perhaps some gay californians can launch a lawsuit against him for this languaging/defaming??? or perhaps we can call for his 'ouster' from TV???? i know, dream on...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Genia Stevens on December 20, 2008 at 2:11am

I can't find that blog posting, but I found a Ron Paul article discussing free speech and religion. I know, he's not the best source, but his comments come close to being civil - http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr040203b.htm


Coach Sappho said:

neither i nor Rick Warren is allowed via 'free speech' to demean people on the basis of age, gender, race, religion, etc., in fact, he could do so in private, but if he did so publicly, on this tv interview or as an employer or landlord, he would be thrown off the air, sued or be charged with breaking the law.

so why is it ok for folks like Warren to spout his demeaning characterizations about gay people and say it's legal and freedom of speech to be able to do so?

perhaps some gay californians can launch a lawsuit against him for this languaging/defaming??? or perhaps we can call for his 'ouster' from TV???? i know, dream on...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by p.Johanna on December 20, 2008 at 2:25am

from Religious Tolerance dot org"Can members of the clergy be charged on the basis of their sermons? No. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that a member of the clergy, or any other person for that matter, can preach, write, post on the Internet, state, or publish an attack on anyone or any group. As proof of this consider:
The many conservative Christian web sites that attack Wiccans on the Internet with statements that are totally divorced from reality.
The beliefs and teachings of the Creativity Movement (formerly called the World Church of the Creator), some of whose members allegedly murdered strangers because of their race.
Religious sermons, particularly during the 1960s, which vilified African-Americans seeking equal rights.
Decades of Anti-semitism on the radio, on television, in books, in sermons etc.
In another case, the Virginia Supreme Court decided on 2001-NOV-2 that cross burning -- surely one of the most offensive form of speech -- was protected by the U.S. Constitution. The New York Times commented on the case:
"The [Virginia] court said the First Amendment prohibits the government from "silencing speech on the basis of its content." The justices struck down a St. Paul ordinance making it a crime to engage in speech or behavior likely to arouse "anger or alarm" on the basis of "race, color, creed, religion or gender."
Several legal experts said yesterday they doubted that the Supreme Court would agree to review the Virginia case.

"The Supreme Court has largely said racist speech is speech, and it is difficult for states to single out racist speech for criminal prosecution," said Robert A. Schapiro, a constitutional law professor at Emory University in Atlanta...

A. E. Dick Howard, a constitutional law professor at the University of Virginia, said many courts had accepted the idea that even offensive communications are protected by the First Amendment.

"The thinking is," Mr. Howard said, "one man's offensive speech is somebody else's free expression." 12

If these individuals or groups have never been convicted of a crime, it is very doubtful that a clergyperson preaching a sermon of hate against gays and lesbians would ever be charged. Hate crimes legislation would in no way overrule the First Amendment."

Now a lot of them fight AGAINST gay rights because they fear that we will become a protected class that will sue them if they, for example, don't marry us in their church, but that is a fear tactic, they are already protected under their freedom of Religion and the laws that govern them.

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page