Pastors handing in their sermons in Houston.

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,851
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Like telling your parishioners to vote for Proposition 8 and ban same-sex marriage in CA?...:rolleyes:


and for the n-th time, read the facts before pontificating about the inconvenience of the First Amendment to some people at the distant end of the political spectrum.

This affair is about an invalidated petition regarding a city ordinance, not a political candidate or party.
Do you mean as the Mormons did?

No matter how many times you say it Prop 8 wouldn't have passed even if 100% of the blacks voted for it. It took all those with closed minds to help.
 

Penis Aficionado

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Posts
2,949
Media
0
Likes
1,196
Points
198
Location
Austin (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
I have no problem with churches expressing political opinion or promoting agendas. They've been doing it for years and not only in the USA. All those right-wing TV evangelists have had political agendas. Many churches are active in the anti-abortion movement. The RC Church was always cozy with politicians represent certain ethic groups that composed a large majority of their membership base. Churches were very active and influential in the US civil rights movement and in opposing the Vietnam War.

People getting their knickers in a knot over some churches opposing gay rights seems a bit strange to me. Should churches and pastors that support gay marriage STFU as well?

If they use hate speech then they should be prosecuted of course. But this looks like it could just be an intimidation tactic by some people in the city government and if that's the case then it's an abuse of power.

I agree with everything you wrote. I just don't think churches should be tax-exempt unless they truly operate as a nonprofit institution for the public good.
 

SolK95

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 29, 2014
Posts
151
Media
38
Likes
180
Points
188
Location
Palmetto (Florida, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I agree with everything you wrote. I just don't think churches should be tax-exempt unless they truly operate as a nonprofit institution for the public good.

This is pretty much my stance on the matter. There needs to be a line. Some churches really aren't even churches anymore, look at the lovely ideals of Westboro. They are literally anti everything, america included, and yet they are still a "church for the public good". No one, and i mean, NO ONE, has ever been helped in any way by the WB.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
I agree with everything you wrote. I just don't think churches should be tax-exempt unless they truly operate as a nonprofit institution for the public good.

I believe this as well, and have said so on several occasions. Since most churches pretty much say and endorse whatever they want, they should ante UP in their fair share of taxes toward the common good they profess to believe in.

Regarding hate speech in general, I would PRESUME those who feel it's protected under the first amendment would ALSO acknowledge OUR first amendment right to call it out for the hateful bulls**t it IS.
 
Last edited:
D

deleted213967

Guest
Do you mean as the Mormons did?

No matter how many times you say it Prop 8 wouldn't have passed even if 100% of the blacks voted for it. It took all those with closed minds to help.

...something about black calling pot kettle...
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Do you mean as the Mormons did?

No matter how many times you say it Prop 8 wouldn't have passed even if 100% of the blacks voted for it. It took all those with closed minds to help.

Perhaps you meant to say prop 8 would've passed even if 100% of the black electorate voted against it. They only made up 10% of total voters.

Not that any of that matters to those here who chose to believe black people were to blame for its passage, the REASON for such, all too obvious, I think.

...something about black calling pot kettle...

I think it's that "black" bit that's the root of your problems, bud.

You seem determined to take US to task over the measure. However Stormfront AND I have MORE than made ourselves abundantly clear as to our position on the rights of individuals to marry whom they CHOOSE.

More so, that THIS comes from a 99% gay person who never misses an opportunity to defend politicians, ideology, or a party that apparently couldn't give a flying -------- about you or your rights, strikes ME as damned insulting, IF not downright LAUGHABLE. But,

since we want to focus on the black perspective, it so happens Obama opposed it, all but two state chapters of the NAACP opposed it, and that organization's national chairman and president opposed it, among other "liberals" you so disdain.

Further (as I've already stated), prop 8 had PLENTY of support. From members of your beloved party (Romney, McCain, Gingrich) from religious groups who poured some 40 million into it, and it got at least half if not most of the vote from Latinos, Catholics, and married couples.

Plenty of blame to go around besides black folk.

The fact that it passed, imo, just goes to reinforce OUR arguments in that it shows the power of hate speech cloaked in religious zealotry and self righteousness.
 
Last edited:

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,851
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
...something about black calling pot kettle...
Well unlike you( a so called Democrat who disliked Bush) it took more than a black man running to make me switch parties. I, for one voted against my state's proposition. It passed but then again we aren't the majority(another point you failed to address)
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,362
Media
30
Likes
6,522
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
It seems you are missing the point. Lecturing from the Bible is one thing, however using the pulpit or sermon to stump for a political party or candidate is another. No church should get away with that and still hope for tax exemption. In other words...preach what the Bible says about homosexuality(okay) but tell your parishioners that they MUST vote against same sex marriage(not okay)

OK, but how is telling your congregants ("parishioner" only applies to traditions that have parishes, which a lot of Protestant denominations don't) how to vote on a particular moral issue the same as telling them which candidate or party to support?
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,851
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
OK, but how is telling your congregants ("parishioner" only applies to traditions that have parishes, which a lot of Protestant denominations don't) how to vote on a particular moral issue the same as telling them which candidate or party to support?
I grew up in a Baptist church so I can only go by them. Preaching the Scripture is one thing. Telling people in the congregation who to vote for and how to vote is another.
 

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
Hate speech most certainly IS protected speech under 1st Amendment. That is a result of the Snyder v. Phelps Supreme Court case. That allowed the Westboro Baptist Church to espouse their hate at the funerals of soldiers

Snyder v. Phelps was not about hate speech. Also, Fuzzy is referring to political speech in churches.

Just like Goebbels, right fuzzy?

What does Nazi hate speech have to do with this issue?


This affair is about an invalidated petition regarding a city ordinance, not a political candidate or party.

Then why are all of the right-wing blogs claiming that the Mayor had the subpoenas issued?

Domisoldo, Fuzzy will wait patiently for an answer.
 

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
Fuzzy, I'm talking about your first post in this thread. Sounds remiscent of Goebbels's "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

Similar to this:
WOW: Moms Demand Action employee cites Goebbels’ words as wise words to live by | GunsSaveLife.com

You posted that crap already in the gun thread.

Anyway, what Fuzzy said is true: hate speech is not protected. If you go out and scream that Jews need to be eradicated, don't expect to have your "free speech" protected.
 

h0neymustard

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Posts
2,668
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
73
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You said exactly the same thing in your post. If they have nothing to hide, then they don't need to fear turning them over, right?

Hate speech is protected, according to the aclu. The aclu of all groups!!!
 

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
Hate speech, obscenity, defamation and other kinds of dangerous speech are illegal.

As for hate speech, visit St. Paul, Minnesota and burn a cross in public. Even your beloved Justice Scalia ruled against such things.
 
D

deleted213967

Guest
You posted that crap already in the gun thread.

Anyway, what Fuzzy said is true: hate speech is not protected. If you go out and scream that Jews need to be eradicated, don't expect to have your "free speech" protected.

Wrong, there is no "Clear and Present Danger" exception in this unsavory yet unspecific case.

Shouting "Fire" in a crowded synagogue to cause panic and harm (presumably) Jews, would be, on the other hand, as in the textbook example.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Hate speech, obscenity, defamation and other kinds of dangerous speech are illegal.

As for hate speech, visit St. Paul, Minnesota and burn a cross in public. Even your beloved Justice Scalia ruled against such things.

I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Scalia and the Court struck down the local ordinance against hate speech.
 

Penis Aficionado

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Posts
2,949
Media
0
Likes
1,196
Points
198
Location
Austin (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
The speech the Supreme Court would allow is not necessarily the same as the speech your local police officer, assistant DA or county judge would allow.

Again, feel free to go chant "Gas the Jews" outside your nearest synagogue. After several years of public shaming and banishment, tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and hopefully a couple of random beatings, the Supreme Court may well back your right to free speech. Tell Scalia I said hi!