A well-known conservative evangelical ministry has gathered more than 33,000 petitions against a “hate crimes” legislation and will deliver them to President Bush and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell this week.
The petitions collected by Coral Ridge Ministries are a response to the hate crimes amendment that Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) attached to the defense spending bill under consideration in the Senate this week.
“This is the single most dangerous piece of legislation we have seen in the recent past, because of its threat to silence the Church on the subject of homosexual behavior,” said Jerry Newcombe, senior producer of The Coral Ridge Hour, CRM’S TV broadcast. “I shudder to think what the impact on free speech will be if this law is enacted.”
Many Christian and pro-family groups have been protesting the hate crimes bill for months, arguing that the federal bill is repetitive of existing state laws and threatens the free speech of those who speak on the biblical view of homosexuality.
The hate crimes legislation seeks to add sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability to the list of racial, ethnic, and religious categories already protected under law. It would also make it easier for the federal government to become involved in hate crimes investigations.
Chuck Colson – founder of Prison Fellowship and former top aide to President Richard Nixon – dubbed the hate crimes legislation the “Thought Control Act of 2007.”
“See, the bill is not about crime prevention or even civil rights,” wrote Colson in a column this week. “It’s about outlawing peaceful speech – speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.”
The evangelical leader noted that hate crimes can be defined to include verbal attacks and peaceful speech. He also pointed to hate-crime laws in England, Sweden and Canada where the “Thought Police” have already prosecuted Christians for breaking these laws. Moreover, 11 Christians were prosecuted under the state hate crimes law for preaching against homosexuality in public in Pennsylvania.
Coral Ridge’s hate crimes petitions will urge President Bush to veto any hate crimes measure that reaches his desk and asks Sen. McConnell to build a coalition of senators to stop the legislation from even reaching the president.
The White House, to its credit, had warned Congress in May that the president plans to veto the hate crimes bill if it reaches the president’s desk.
CRM, in addition to the hate crimes petitions, has also partnered with the Family Research Council this past spring to create a special video, entitled Hate Crimes Laws: Censoring the Church and Silencing Christians, to expose the threat of adopting such laws.
“Ultimately, ‘hate crimes’ laws pave the way to label the Christian message as ‘hate speech’ and lead to criminalizing Christians,” said Newcombe, co-producer of the Hate Crimes Laws video. “How can we as Christians get the vital message out that Jesus died to free us from the consequences of all our sinful lifestyles, when ‘hate crimes’ laws threaten to silence us? Now is the time to speak up, before we can’t speak at all.”
Coral Ridge Ministry, founded by Dr. D. James Kennedy, has radio and television programs that reach more than three million people weekly through more than 750 radio outlets and more than 600 TV Stations.
RSS
Comments
Back to why homosexuality is detrimental to our society because they cannot reproduce, and they spread disease far more than hetereosexuals. We are a doomed race if this continues.
Are you kidding me? Some of these comments are absolutely arrogant. You are missing the whole point of this debate. We, Christians, are not petitioning against these people, we are not attacking these people. We are attacking the behavior of the person. You need to separate the behavior, which is sinful, from the person. For we all sin and all sin is looked upon as equal in God's eyes. We want to help these people, but we will not accept homosexuality(behavior) BECAUSE it is detrimental not only to our society but if you accept homosexuality because "it's what they want to do and peace and love blah blah" then you accept pedofiles and child molesters along with them. Because both behaviors are immoral and wrong, and people who practice both say they were "born like that" and "it's who they are". Let me tell you alittle about psychology. We are conditioned as children to have and instill morals into what we do and who we are. But it is not who they are! They just don't want to change, they could if they tried. But sin is always easier. If you love what is of the world than you love what is not of God and if you are part of or join in the "things" of this World(adultery, gay sex, porn, drinking,drugs,you get the point) then you are not God's. We need to help these people with their "sin" and love them but we DO NOT need to accept this BEHAVIOR for it is disgusting and unnatural.
From the actual legislation that passed the house:
‘SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act , or the amendments made by this Act , shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Passed the House of Representatives May 3, 2007. ‘
The First Amendment to the Constitution:
‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’
There are already limits to free speech (such as yelling fire in a movie theater) this act does nothing to change that. As far as the scope of the act, it applies only to physical harm or attempting to physically harm an individual based on ‘actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.’ There is absolutely nothing in the act regarding ‘crime incitement’. To exclude ‘religious organizations and people from this law, in the area of speech’, makes no sense as they are already included under section 8.
Go to the Library of Congress at http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search for H. R. 1592 if you are interested.
::being quote:: didymus
BTW, I dislike that quote of Grant & Horne’s. It’s true that the wrong thing done in the right way is still wrong, but the right thing done in the wrong way is not right… it’s wrong. The right thing done in the right way is right. Saying that doing the right thing in the wrong way is okay is merely justifying our own sin.
::end quote::
I probably should have clarified the context of that quote, their point in that book was that the right thing done in the wrong way was also wrong. Rather we should do the right thing in the right way.
Yoratz: “crafty love”… hmmm, that’s interesting. Sounds like one of those doing the right thing the wrong way kind of things. The kind of love that we Christians think is loving, but the beloved has a different opinion about. We Christians need to question a little more what it is we call loving others, and test it to see if we are really loving even our enemies, or if we are doing something a bit more insidious.
Praise God!
Hi all... Here's my thoughts.
The United States is a land of free people who vote and lobby to get their opinions upheld.
That means that if I have a belief or opinion about homosexuality I have the option (I'd say obligation) to do something about it - that means that personally I would be expected to petition my congressperson and government to keep their law making as Biblical and as Bible supportive as possible - concerning homosexuality and everything else.
Why?
Because God loves us and He didn't give us the Bible for nothing.
Why should I petition?
Because I live in a society where if I don't petition for what I believe in, I am counter productive to whatever it is that I believe.
Now concerning intent:
Intent is very hard... No impossible to define in legislation (a good example of a bad example "hate crimes").
It is, on the other hand the very thing that God defines righteousness by (1st Cor 13:1 - 3).
Some believers may think that makes things difficult. Perhaps not.
I say, let's just do what God asked us to do and do it with love. People will judge us in the end by our example.
A prime example of doing the right thing at the wrong time for the wrong reasons is the clowns that show up at soldiers funerals with signs that say "Your son is in hell".
That my friends is what I call a HATE CRIME. What better reason does a homosexual need to delve deep and search for some little bit of pride that he/she can cling to?
We HAVE to tell them. So let's tell 'em (God will judge us for NOT telling them - don't take my word for it).
We have to uphold the Bible and its standards for God and for our own protection against opposing legislature. So let's get active - To be non-active is counter productive and to be truthful, lazy.
And lastly, let's do it with love - let's search and delve and dig and strive. Let's exert our every fibre to find whatever we can to love people for. ALL PEOPLE. Let's continually tell people how beautiful they are in our eyes because they are in Gods eyes, never forgetting to remind them to repent for whatever it might be that is putting distance between them and the Father.
And one last thing: Tact is a good thing!
Let's be crafty as serpents and harmless as doves - Yes God commends crafty love! so let's put our hearts and minds to it.
DannyPoo: Yes, you misunderstood, or more likely I was not clear in my comment, so the fault is not with you. Let me try to clarify. They were correct in upholding that ruling against the author of the ad not because he was not using the gospel, but because he was condemn them, and condemning them in way that creates fear for ones physical safety.
Imagine if I took some ad space out in your local paper and took a picture of you and your family and wrote above it “CONDEMNED BY GOD!” and then crossed out the picture of you and your family. What would you think of that when you opened up the paper and saw that? Would you think it still safe to walk the streets of your hometown? As you go for your morning coffee at the local Starbucks on your way to work, some stranger sitting at a table might do a double take and say to you “hay, it’s you… man, somebody out there really does not like you, and I mean they really do not like you. Good luck man.”
Another example, this one outside of the homosexuality issue and a little closer to home for me, back in 2004 when things where heating up for our State’s primary elections, anti-immigration rhetoric was in full swing out here, one day I caught my wife scraping off from the back of her car her Colombian flag sticker. My wife loves her country, but here she was scraping off her country’s flag. Why? Fear, too much anti-immigrant talk going on. A couple of months back, the local Utah County Republican Party affiliate had their convention. One delegate to the convention put forward a resolution that declared that illegal immigrants are plot of Satan to destroy America. A plot of Satan to destroy America! It didn’t pass, but a message was sent. Again, not to long ago, just across the street from my home, a car pulled up next to another car and they yelled at the occupants of that car, “go home %@*#, go back to your own %@*# country!!” Now I’m white dude from California, so this place is safe for me, but this kind of rhetoric makes me think twice about just how safe my community is, really, for my Colombian wife and very brown skinned daughter.
I think the situation is similar with the gay and lesbian community. They are living in fear of the in your face Christian community, the forcefully advancing (right into your parade) Christian community, the Christian community that has declared you an abomination to both God and country, the Christian community that has at various times declared you as the cause of God’s wrath on this country, and all of its other ills well, including even Islamic terrorism, a Christian community that has crossed you out.
BTW, I dislike that quote of Grant & Horne’s. It’s true that the wrong thing done in the right way is still wrong, but the right thing done in the wrong way is not right… it’s wrong. The right thing done in the right way is right. Saying that doing the right thing in the wrong way is okay is merely justifying our own sin.
::begin quote:: by didymus
Let’s look at an example that DannyPoo brought up in his list, where “in 2001 the Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan upheld the ruling… that stated that certain bible passages could be viewed as "hate" literature after a man published an ad in a newspaper that simply listed 4 bible references but not quoting the actual verses, with an equals sign to a picture of two men holding hands overlaid with the universal nullification symbol”. I think the court was correct in upholding that ruling and fining the author of the ad. Why? Because the ad doesn’t express anything about the gospel of Christ, about his love for them, that he died for them, in spite of their sin, it only expresses condemnation.
::end quote::
Didymus, while I appreciate your desire to stress the gospel....not just stress the sins. Did you realize what you just said?
This is what I understood you to be saying(so please correct me if I am wrong) That because someone was not stressing the gospel(death burial and ressurection of Christ) using bible verses...the Government of Canada had a right to restrict his free speech?
I hope that wasn't what your saying and that I simply mis-understand you.
On my personal opinion on this issue, while I don't find it appropriate to Over-stress one particular sin(homosexuality), I see nothing wrong with expressing something as a sin, especially in a world who does not even regard it as sin.
The recoginition that something is against the law of God is incredibly important. The law allows us to become conscious of sin(Romans 3:20).
"What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." Romans 7:20
We need the law, to know that there is sin, to know that we need a savior. It is essential to the Gospel, now I am not saying that people nowadays are approaching this issue in the best possible way. We must both learn to distribute law....AND grace. Here is one of my favorite quotes that I believe best sums up this issue.
"It is a sad tendancy of modern men to either do the right thing in the wrong way or do the wrong thing in the right way. We either hold to truth obnoxiously or we hold to a lie graciously. We are either a rude angel or a polite devil. Often what poses as a cruel orthodoxy is defeated by what poses as a kind heresy" - George Grant & Mark Horne
from the book "Unnatural Affections"
Comicalcupcake & others: A couple of points I would like to make:
1. When was the last time a Christian was beaten and killed for being a Christian here in the United States? I know a number of folks who have been beaten, lynched, dragged to death for being black, others have been beaten and killed for being gay, but I can’t think of any Christians martyred for being Christians here in the U.S. Can you think of one? Maybe a Christian who got lynched to a traffic light in downtown San Francisco for sharing his faith, hanging there while people waited for the light to turn green? I can’t think of any.
Let’s face it, we are sissies, we are afraid of the wimpiest “persecution”. Our pastors are scared of being fined, of spending a few nights in jail for Christ, we are scared that our church might lose its tax-exempt status. Sad.
2. Scripture can and is unfortunately often misused. What passes for sharing our faith is often far from anything expressing the gospel and love of Christ. I’ll explain by way of examples. First, an example from outside of the homosexuality issue, here in Salt Lake City, a couple of times a year, every time the LDS Conference comes around, a handful of “evangelicals” come out to share their faith with the locals at their conference. They bring their signs with their slogans and scripture references and promptly make fools of themselves. They yell, they holler, and they declare, and sometimes they even publicly tear up underwear (that really ticks the Mormon guys off), but mostly they condemn them and call it love. Because of this evangelicals in this town are not known for their love, but for being jerks. In the gay and lesbian community it is much the same. They don’t hate us because we are sharing the gospel of Christ with them, they hate us because we are being jerks.
Let’s look at an example that DannyPoo brought up in his list, where “in 2001 the Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan upheld the ruling… that stated that certain bible passages could be viewed as "hate" literature after a man published an ad in a newspaper that simply listed 4 bible references but not quoting the actual verses, with an equals sign to a picture of two men holding hands overlaid with the universal nullification symbol”. I think the court was correct in upholding that ruling and fining the author of the ad. Why? Because the ad doesn’t express anything about the gospel of Christ, about his love for them, that he died for them, in spite of their sin, it only expresses condemnation.
Imagine if I took out an ad in the New York Times, and skipped all the symbols, and just put there on a plain white background this one scripture reference:
MATTHEW 27: 23-26
It’s just a scripture reference, but not one to be played with, or taken lightly. So many people have paid with their lives for the misuse of that one reference.
The Christian message, the gospel of Christ, is not what is being attacked by this bill, but rather our misuse of scripture to condemn those we don’t love.
didymus, I respectfully submit that you don't understand 1)the bill that's being debated and 2) the larger cultural context on our continent and in Europe. Point 1: The bill seeks to punish "intimidation," which could be construed as preaching the biblical message that homosexual lust is a sin, and that the wages of sin is death. Also, versions of it would punish "incitement" to commit a crime. This means that if a pastor preaches Romans 1 on Sunday and someone who heard it assaults a homosexual on Monday, the pastor can also be tried for inciting a hate crime. This is not fiction. Which leads to point 2: This has become a reality in other countries. Pastors are tried and sometimes convicted for preaching the Bible, notably in Canada, Belgium, and Sweden. Aside from this particular bill, there is concern about the eroding rights of those with sincerely held religious beliefs vis-a-vis the GLBTQ agenda. From the rash of pride parades across the country this summer (each city finding a unique way of stifling Christian speech), to the Harper children not being allowed to wear their scripture-quoting t-shirts to school the day after the Day of Silence celebrating rights for sexual deviants, to the president's appointee for surgeon general being denied a hearing because of "hate speech" for pointing out that a person's back end has no natural lubricant, people are being told that, free speech or no, their message against the deviancy of homosexuality is not welcome. This bill is just one more shove toward that slippery slope.
Skrotoski: Propaganda. “How will homosexuals know the truth that God can forgive their sin, heal and change them?” You can tell them, this bill isn’t stopping you. “This bill is unAmerican and would confuse millions of people by leading them down a path that is against God as well as science” This bill isn’t un-American, it’s a bill to be debated and possibly passed into law by Congress, it’s all-American. It isn’t against God, it doesn’t support anything anti-God. Plus, I doubt that God is bothered by this bill no matter what it says, he might even support it, especially since he is on record in his opposition to hate crimes. And to think this bill is against science is just simply absurd. “The majority of Americans are not homosexual and do not support this bill.” Dumb logic.
Think man… just because a law is designed to protect a sinful person from a hate crime doesn’t stop you from being a Christian. And lies and misinformation should never be used to promote a political cause, especially by Christians, who should know better!
Ask two Pastors in Canada if this bill is a bunch of baloney. This bill would would make preaching from scripture concerning homosexuality a hate crime.
There are those who beleive The Word of God is offensive. Get ready Church, we are living in the Last Days as the Bible declares, And there is going to be persecution against the true Church.
And remember, Not everyone is going to beleive or accept the truth of Gods Word, For those who do,Thank God, And for those who don't, Thank God anyway. Art.
I realize it won't necessarily convice others of my position on this. I hope it'll help you understand why I personally oppose adding sexual orientation in most legal codes because of proven loss of religious freedom, expecially from "Hate Crime" legistlation.
I do not wish to see sexual orientation added to the code for some important reasons.
Adding "sexual orientation" potentially places itself in conflict with Religious Freedom.
Examples:
A District of Columbia human rights commission ordered Georgetown University, a Catholic college, to violate church doctrine and sponsor a pro-homosexual group on campus. A court agreed, saying the District’s “sexual orientation” law overrode the school’s religious freedom. It didn’t matter that neither “sexual orientation” nor sodomy are protected in the Constitution or that religion is specifically protected. In the hands of the judges, “sexual orientation” takes on a life of its own.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that a non-profit, private institution can lose its tax-exempt status if it violates the spirit of the national policy against racial discrimination, considering that race is a protected class, could church's and other faith-based organizations loose their tax exempt status because of a newly created "sexual orientation" protected class?
In 2003 Atlanta Human Rights Commission ordered a local golf club to extend spousal rights to gay member partners, Thankfully officials intervened, and the Georgia legislature promptly passed a law exempting private clubs from local anti-discrimination obligations.
In September 2002 the Berkeley, California, City Council pulled the low-cost lease for city dock space for the Sea Scouts, saying that the group is associated with the Boy Scouts, and thereby violates the city’s “sexual orientation” law.
In June, 2001, The District of Columbia’s Commission on Human Rights fined the Scouts $100,000 and ordered them to reinstate two openly homosexual leaders. That decision was overturned in court, but the Scouts paid heavy legal fees.
The Ann Arbor, Michigan City Council cut ties in August 2001 to the local United Way for their refusal to eject the Scouts from the United Way program.
In Portland, Maine, city officials canceled a $60,000 grant for a Salvation Army meals-on-wheels program for senior citizens. Why? As a Christian denomination, the Salvation Army won't provide marital benefits to homosexual employees, thus running afoul of the city's "sexual orientation" law.
When the Portland's "sexual orientation" ordinance was introduced, proponents argued, as they do often today, that it would merely ensure that "people won't be fired for being 'gay.'"
In 1997, the Salvation Army gave up $3.5 million in San Francisco city funding rather than submit to an order for them to offer "domestic partner" benefits to homosexual employees.
In Arlington Virginia. a video duplicator had been ordered by the Arlington County Human Rights Commission to produce video material for a lesbian activist or pay for someone else to duplicate the videos. The videos Vincenz wanted duplicated were two documentaries entitled: “Gay and Proud” and “Second Largest Minority”. Tim Bono, argued that he could not, in good conscience (him being a Christian), produce material that promoted homosexual activity.
A California software maker was forced to pay a settlement and legal fees totaling over $1 million because the company did not promote a man who had come to work dressed as a woman. It did not matter that the company did not even know the "woman" was a man. The "victim" sued under California’s "sexual orientation" law. As legal fees escalated, the company finally settled out of court. To pay for the loss, eight employees were laid off, with the number eventually growing to 20. (The incident was related in "Computer Soft-Wear," in The Other Side of Tolerance, p. 12.)
In Philadelphia, home of Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell, the Pennsylvania state "hate crime" law was used to justify the arrest and jailing of nearly a dozen Christians On October 11, 2004, homosexual activists were celebrating "National Coming Out Day" at a street fair for an event called Outfest. The Christian Group Repent America peacefully and Legally walked into the gathering, singing hymns and carrying signs encouraging homosexuals to repent. They were surrounded by a self-described group called "The Pink Angels," who blocked their movement with large cut-outs of angel shapes. Police then arrested 11 Christians and none of the Pink Angels. Ranging in age from a 17-year-old girl to a 72-year-old grandmother, the Christians spent the night in jail. The next day, five of them, including the teenager, faced eight charges-three felonies and five misdemeanors-stemming from Pennsylvania's "hate crimes" law: criminal conspiracy, possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment of another person, ethnic intimidation, riot, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct and obstructing highways. If convicted on all charges, the Christians could have faced a total of 47 years in prison. Despite a videotape that showed no criminal activity, the prosecution refused to withdraw the charges, and characterized the group's views in court as "hate speech." In February 2005, a judge finally dismissed the charges, saying that she found "no basis whatsoever for any of them." However, a liberal government openly hostile to Christians was able to use the "hate crimes" law to send a message of intimidation toward people who oppose the promotion of homosexuality.
More recently, the Philadelphia City Council voted to force the Cradle of Liberty Boy Scout Council to pay fair market rent on a building located on city property, or leave. Since 1928, city officials have allowed the Scout Council to use its headquarters without paying rent.
City Council members claim the Scouts are not in compliance with Philadelphia's "Fair Practices Ordinance," which says organizations using city property must not discriminate against homosexuals, lesbians, or cross-dressers. The city says the Scouts violate the anti-discrimination policy because homosexuals are not allowed to join, or to become Scout leaders.
Efforts by the scout group in Philadelphia to appease the city and activists have failed, one group stated that the groups want "...a pro-gay policy expressly stating that the Cradle of Liberty Scout Council will accept open homosexuals."
In 2006 the 9th Circuit Court in California ruled last year(06) that members of a Christian employees group for the city of Oakland could not use words like “marriage,” “natural family,” or “family values” in email correspondence or on posters in city offices where a wide variety of groups are allowed to post. The 9th circuit panel decided that such words were akin to hate speech because they made homosexual city employees uncomfortable.
The Christians' notice said:
Good News Employee Associations is a forum of people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family values.
If you would like to be a part of preserving integrity in the Workplace call Regina Rederford at (EMAIL UNLISTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS POST)
One of my greatest concerns is the possible passage of the National Hate Crime law that would add sexual orientation. That while going through the house judiciary committee. I want to give a quote from something that happened during an attempt to add amendments (protecting religious groups etc, that were all struck down) (April 25th 2007).
Congressman Gohmert asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?”
Gohmert was attempting to clarify and emphasize that the legislation would have an effect on the constitutional right to religious freedom and thus the Pence amendment was needed to protect religious speech.
The Democrats continued to explain why they could not accept the amendment. Lundgren continuously shot down their answer. He said, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?”
And finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, “Yes.”
While I am not approving on the potential act of someone attacking another person for their sexual orientation in any manner (it is illegal to attack a person regardless), If a Pastor gave a sermon on why he believed something was wrong. It is his religious right to preach what he believes.
This is not limited to our Government
Some examples from Canada:
Canada which has had similar "free speech" laws in the past are now being limited because of "hate crime" laws with the listing of sexual orientation. In 2001 the Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan upheld the ruling by the "Human Rights Tribunal" (the equivalent to many of our city's Human/Civil Rights Commissions) that stated that certain bible passages could be viewed as "hate" literature after a man published an ad in a newspaper that simply listed 4 bible references but not quoting the actual verses, with an equals sign to a picture of two men holding hands overlaid with the universal nullification symbol – a red circle with a diagonal bar. (example: no smoking sign). This man was fined 1,500 Canadian dollars.
Pastors have actually been arrested from preaching from their own pulpit about homosexuality because of how the courts have interpreted "hate crime" law's.
In 2001, the Ontario Human Rights Commission penalized printer Scott Brockie $5,000 for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual advocacy group. Brockie argued that his Christian beliefs compelled him to reject the group's request. Ontario private business owners lack freedom to choose their clients according to conscience.
As far as their discrimination laws, Canada's British Columbia human rights tribunal has gone as far as forcing churches to rent out their buildings to homosexuals for marriages and calling it "discrimination" if a pastor refused to marry two homosexuals.
Religious freedom emerged as an issue when the provincial governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba insisted that marriage commissioners, who perform civil ceremonies, resign if their religious beliefs preclude them from performing ceremonies for homosexuals. In Saskatchewan, the justice minister is investigating a complaint filed against a marriage commissioner who refused to perform a homosexual marriage. In other provinces, dissenting commissioners are being protected by "grandfather" clauses in their contracts.
In 2003, the Canadian House of Commons passed a bill that added “sexual orientation” to the list of groups protected against so-called “hate speech.” Violators can be sentenced to up to five years in prison for uttering words critical of homosexual sodomy.
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has warned major U.S. broadcasters such as Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family that Canadian stations may carry their programs only after excising any segment dealing with homosexuality after a 1997 Focus on the Family program in which panelists discussed scientific claims about genetic studies and homosexuality as well as the aims and activities of homosexual pressure groups, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council issued a statement saying that Focus on the Family "attributed to the gay movement a false and flimsy intellectual basis and a malevolent, insidious and conspiratorial purpose, which, in the view of the Council, constitute abusively discriminatory comment on the basis of ‘sexual orientation.’"
In the Canadian city of Kamloops, British Columbia, a Catholic city councilman was brought up on charges before the provincial Human Rights Tribunal after two homosexual men took offense at his words. What did John DeCicco say that was so bad? At a city council meeting he merely stated that homosexual acts were "not normal and not natural." He repeated that opinion in media interviews, according to LifeSiteNews.com.
To avoid a full-fledged hearing on the matter, DeCicco was forced to pay a fine of $1,000 and provide a statement claiming that his comments were "inappropriate and hurtful to some."
On a side note, In London months ago(March 07), the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended regulations that would make it illegal for private, religious schools to teach that homosexual conduct is immoral. The committee claimed the regulations are needed to combat discrimination against homosexuals.
Last summer, the British government closed down an IFI unit (Religious Organization) because they teach that sex should be limited to heterosexual marriage. And if these regulations violate the rights of Christians—what does the government say? “Too bad.”
Stopping viewpoints stating homosexuality is abnormal and that a person can be restored to the way God created them is wrong. This bill would hurt individuals and families. How will homosexuals know the truth that God can forgive their sin, heal and change them? This bill is unAmerican and would confuse millions of people by leading them down a path that is against God as well as science. The majority of Americans are not homosexual and do not support this bill.
We need to let the President know we support his desires to VETO this bill today.
For more information see:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/S1105_HateCrimeReport2007July18075.php
seriously, statements such as “This is the single most dangerous piece of legislation we have seen in the recent past, because of its threat to silence the Church…” are absolutely absurd. these things are said out of hate and prove that these people are just the oppsite of christian. christians should be working together, not singling out groups for discrimination. this hate crimes bill is so important i cant stress it enough. there has been way too much discrimination against homosexuals for way too long and objections to a hate crimes bill make no sense at all and only serve to degrade fellow humans/christians.