ESPN newscaster punished for not affirming the goodness of homosexuality

Here’s a popular post at the American Spectator.

Excerpt:

As homosexuals come out of the closet, Christians go into it. “Authenticity” is highly prized in society today, provided that what one feels falls safely within the dictates of political correctness. Sports analyst Chris Broussard stepped briefly outside of the Christian closet on Monday and paid the price for it.

“Personally I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex [lifestyle] between heterosexuals. If you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that’s a sin,” Broussard said on ESPN. “If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be. I think that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ.”

ESPN, not long thereafter, apologized for permitting these remarks to disrupt Monday’s canonization: “We regret that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became a distraction from today’s news. ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.”

Naturally, a Soviet-style clarification was in order from the guilty party, and Broussard supplied it via Twitter by Monday night: “Today on [ESPN], as part of a larger, wide-ranging discussion on today’s news, I offered my personal opinion as it relates to Christianity, a point of view that I have expressed publicly before. I realize that some people disagree with my opinion and I accept and respect that. As has been the case in the past, my beliefs have not and will not impact my ability to report on the NBA. I believe Jason Collins displayed bravery with his announcement today and I have no objection to him or anyone else playing in the NBA.”

Broussard did a good job of expressing his opposition to marriage, but any kind of restrictions on sex are no longer welcome in a society that thinks that there are no moral rules when it comes to sex. Obviously, he could have  a better job of expressing his opposition with some evidence, but I don’t see why he should be censored and forced to apologize.

One other funny thing about the gay NBA player story. He had a girlfriend for 8 years and was going to marry her in 2009. He called it off. She found out that he was gay just a few days before the big announcement was made to the public. I wonder how this sort of thing squares with the popular myth that gay people are born gay?

Filed under: News, Carolyn Moos, Chris Broussard, Christianity, ESPN, Family, Free Speech, Gay Agenda, Homosexuality, Marriage, Religious Liberty

Supreme Court of Canada rules that politically incorrect speech is a criminal offense

Political map of Canada

Canada is hostile to free speech, as shown in the recent Supreme Court decision.

Excerpt:

Canada’s top court has released a unanimous decision today that critics say has struck a monumental blow against freedom of speech, opinion, and religion across the country. The court ordered the defendant, a Christian pro-family activist with a reputation for intense activism, not only to pay a fine, but also to pay court costs which could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[...]In Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, the Supreme Court decided that born-again Christian William Whatcott was guilty of hate speech for distributing flyers to neighborhoods in Saskatoon and Regina in 2001 and 2002. While the flyers used vehement language against homosexual practices and the homosexual agenda, they did not directly attack homosexual persons.

[...]The Court focused on Whatcott’s main argument, namely that he loves homosexuals with a brotherly Christian love, and it is only their sexual activity that he denounces.

But the Supreme Court found that with regards to hate speech, the distinction between ‘sin and sinner’ no longer applies.

“I agree that sexual orientation and sexual behaviour can be differentiated for certain purposes,” the Court stated. “However, in instances where hate speech is directed toward behaviour in an effort to mask the true target, the vulnerable group, this distinction should not serve to avoid s. 14(1)(b) [the hate-crime clause of the Code].”

“Courts have recognized a strong connection between sexual orientation and sexual conduct and where the conduct targeted by speech is a crucial aspect of the identity of a vulnerable group, attacks on this conduct stand as proxy for attacks on the group itself,” the Court stated.

The Court ordered Whatcott to pay the Human Rights Commission’s legal fees and to pay $7,500 in compensation to two homosexuals who were offended by his flyers.

Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women of Canada, called the ruling “very depressing” and “bad news”.

[...]“On the one hand they’re saying, ‘Oh, no, no, no, we’re not really infringing on freedom of religion and freedom of speech and freedom of opinion’, but in fact, what they say is not what they’ve done,” she said in an interview with LifeSiteNews.com.

Next time we have an election, can we vote in favor of free speech? I don’t agree with anything Whatcott did – form or content. The man is a fool. But I can easily see how this ruling could be used to silence reasonable speech that disagrees with homosexuality and gay marriage on secular grounds. The motivation of these judges is to silence speech critical of the gay agenda, and we should all be concerned about that. They pick these kooks like Whatcott to attack because they won’t get any opposition from normal people. But later you’ll find out that these legal precedents will furnish the foundation for eliminating free speech altogether. It’s happened before.

Apparently, there is some effort to repeal section 13 in Canada, which is the part that criminalizes speech deemed offensive by the political left. That might affect future rulings of the Supreme Court if it is made clear that the right to free speech is absolute.

Related posts

• Free speech under attack from the secular left in the UK and Canada
• By repealing section 13, Canada takes a baby step toward freedom of speech
• Free speech hero Mark Steyn reflects on the demise of Section 13 fascism
• Canadian conservatives pass bill to repeal Section 13 speech code
• Youtube reverses decision to ban video critical of gay activism in Canada
• Alberta judge rules that it is legal to disagree with homosexuality
• Conservative MP’s bill to repeal Section 13 moves to committee
• Conservative MP introduces bill to abolish Section 13 speech code
• Ezra Levant on the new Sun News television network
• What happens when same-sex marriage conflicts with religious liberty?
• Human Rights Tribunal finds Catholic school board guilty of discrimination
• Saskatchewan planning to abolish its Human Rights Tribunal
• In Canada, Blazing Cat Fur is being sued for linking to Mark Steyn
• Canadian Human Rights Commissions continue war on Christians
• Video of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn testifying against Canadian HRCs
• The Conservative Party takes up free speech in British Columbia
• The Conservative Party takes up free speech in Ontario
• Video of Ezra Levant discussing free speech on the Michael Coren show
• Video interview with Ezra Levant by the libertarian Fraser Institute

Filed under: News, Bill Whatcott, Canada, Communism, Fascism, Feminism, Free Speech, Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Tribunal, Leftism, Nanny State, S. 13, Section 13, Socialism, Speech, Speech Code, Supreme Court, The Left, Thought Crime, Thoughtcrime, William Whatcott

Gay activist introduces bill to ban speech critical of homosexuality in schools

Central United States

Not just public schools, but private schools, including Christian schools.

Take a look at this story from Life Site News.

Excerpt: (links removed)

Homosexual activists in Minnesota are pushing for a broad “Safe and Supportive Schools Act” that would outlaw speech that could interfere with a student’s ability “to participate in a safe and supportive learning environment.”  The bill is being promoted as the strongest “anti-bullying” law in the nation, but critics say it could have a chilling effect on free speech, especially in religious schools that teach Christian beliefs on sexuality.

“We agree … that school bullying is a serious issue that needs to be ameliorated,” said Pete Noll, education director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, testifying before the state legislature.  “All children are entitled to a safe, secure learning environment.”  But he disagreed that the “Safe and Supportive Schools Act” should apply to religious schools.

The bill, as written, would apply not only to public schools, but also to private schools that receive resources of any kind from the state.  As Noll reminded the legislature last Tuesday, although Catholic and other religious schools are forbidden to receive state funding, many of their students receive textbooks, testing and other services from the state.  He said he worried this might be used as justification to freeze speech in private religious schools.

“Combating bullying should never be a pretext to impose an agenda of groups of people, or to undermine the rights of parents to bestow their religious or moral values on their children,” the Catholic conference wrote in a statement.

The bill was introduced by state senator Scott Dibble, an open homosexual who “married” his partner in California before the passage of Proposition 8 (their marriage is not recognized by the state of Minnesota).  He announced the bill’s introduction in a guest post for the homosexual “Human Rights Campaign” website and thanked the group for their support.  He also credited gay activist group Outfront Minnesota for its role in the development of the bill, saying that the group “leads this work” and is “poised to push for a positive vote.”

A similar bill was introduced during the 2009 legislative session and passed both the House and Senate by overwhelming margins, but it was vetoed by then-Governor Tim Pawlenty.  If it passes this year, Governor Mark Dayton, who helped to write the bill, is expected to sign.

How would legalizing same-sex marriage affect you? Is it just about tolerance, or will you be forced to celebrate and affirm a lifestyle that you disagree with? Think about it now while you still have the freedom to do something about it, and vote accordingly.

Related posts

• Gay activists pressure DC Comics to fire pro-marriage author Orson Scott Card
• Police chaplain forced to resign for supporting traditional marriage
• Man who attempted mass shooting at Family Research Council pleads guilty
• Department of Education investigates school over Bible and homosexuality comments
• Teachers face termination for refusing to promote gay marriage
• Gay activist who vandalized Chick-Fil-A restaurant will not be charged
• Floyd Lee Corkins II is a left-winger, admired atheist philosopher Nietzche
• Even after Family Research Council shooting, leftists continue “hate” rhetoric
• The mainstream media’s biased coverage of the Family Research Council shooting
• Southern Poverty Law Center called the Family Research Council “hate group”
• Human Rights Campaign calls the Family Research Council “hate group”
• Family Research Council shooting suspect volunteered at gay community center
• Obama administration linked to gay activist Dan Savage
• Gay activist Dan Savage bullies Christian teens and bashes Christianity
• Hate crime: gay activists vandalize Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church
• Human Rights Campaign leaks list of pro-marriage donors and their addresses
• Gay rights activists vandalize church for posting pro-marriage sign
• Gay manager at Cisco Systems gets Dr. Frank Turek fired
• California Democrats mandate gay history in public schools
• Brown University students attack pro-marriage sign at demonstration
• UK Equalities Minister introduces law allowing gays to marry in churches
• Christian business owners found guilty for disagreeing with homosexuality
• Belgian archbishop targeted by gay activists over AIDS remarks
• Christian couple barred from having foster children
• Christian student loses case with Eastern Michigan University
• Ireland considers bill to criminalize dissent from same-sex civil unions
• Catholic Charities closes adoption agency due to same-sex marriage law
• Do Democrats like Chai Feldblum believe in religious liberty?

Filed under: News, Anti-Religious Bigotry, Barack Obama, Bigotry, Bully, Bullying, Celebrate Diversity, Democrat Party, Fascism, Free Speech, Gay, Gay Activism, Gay Agenda, Gay Bushing, Gay Rights, GLBT, Hate Crime, Hate Group, Hate Speech, Hatred, Homosexual, Human Rights Campaign, Intolerance, LGBT, Religious Liberty, Southern Poverty Law Center, Tolerance

Gay activists pressure DC Comics to fire pro-marriage author Orson Scott Card

From Life Site News.

Excerpt: (links removed)

After pro-homosexual activists promoted an online petition demanding the firing of award-winning speculative fiction writer Orson Scott Card from an upcoming Superman comic anthology, DC Comics confirmed that Card’s portion of the project has been shelved indefinitely.

Card, who is Mormon, sits on the board of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and has been outspoken about his opposition to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.

[...]In another commentary for Sunstone Magazine, he wrote, “[G]ay activism as a movement is no longer looking for civil rights, which by and large homosexuals already have. Rather they are seeking to enforce acceptance of their sexual liaisons as having equal validity with heterosexual marriages, to the point of having legal rights as spouses, the right to adopt children, and the right to insist that their behavior be taught to children in public schools as a completely acceptable ‘alternative lifestyle.’”

“It does not take a homophobe to recognize how destructive such a program will be in a society already reeling from the terrible consequences of ‘no-fault’ divorce, social tolerance of extramarital promiscuity, and failing to protect our adolescents until they can channel their sexual passions in a socially productive way,” Card continued.  “Having already lost control of the car, we now find the gay activists screaming at us to speed up as we drive headlong toward the cliff.”

Homosexual activists said his views should have disqualified him from being hired in the first place.  While his Superman short story was not expected to touch on gay issues, activists argued that to give him a paycheck for his work was tantamount to funding NOM directly.

The petition demanding his firing said, “To DC Comics: By hiring Orson Scott Card despite his anti-gay efforts you are giving him a new platform and supporting his hate.  Make sure your brand stands for equality and drop Orson Scott Card now.”

DC’s decision to shelve Card’s portion of the project came after illustrator Chris Sprouse backed out of doing the art for Card’s short story under heavy pressure from gay advocates and the media.  “The media surrounding this story reached the point where it took away from the actual work, and that’s something I wasn’t comfortable with,” Sprouse said.

It’s very important to see which side of the same-sex marriage debate features the real bigots and the real bullies.

 

Related posts

• Police chaplain forced to resign for supporting traditional marriage
• Man who attempted mass shooting at Family Research Council pleads guilty
• Department of Education investigates school over Bible and homosexuality comments
• Teachers face termination for refusing to promote gay marriage
• Gay activist who vandalized Chick-Fil-A restaurant will not be charged
• Floyd Lee Corkins II is a left-winger, admired atheist philosopher Nietzche
• Even after Family Research Council shooting, leftists continue “hate” rhetoric
• The mainstream media’s biased coverage of the Family Research Council shooting
• Southern Poverty Law Center called the Family Research Council “hate group”
• Human Rights Campaign calls the Family Research Council “hate group”
• Family Research Council shooting suspect volunteered at gay community center
• Obama administration linked to gay activist Dan Savage
• Gay activist Dan Savage bullies Christian teens and bashes Christianity
• Hate crime: gay activists vandalize Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church
• Human Rights Campaign leaks list of pro-marriage donors and their addresses
• Gay rights activists vandalize church for posting pro-marriage sign
• Gay manager at Cisco Systems gets Dr. Frank Turek fired
• California Democrats mandate gay history in public schools
• Brown University students attack pro-marriage sign at demonstration
• UK Equalities Minister introduces law allowing gays to marry in churches
• Christian business owners found guilty for disagreeing with homosexuality
• Belgian archbishop targeted by gay activists over AIDS remarks
• Christian couple barred from having foster children
• Christian student loses case with Eastern Michigan University
• Ireland considers bill to criminalize dissent from same-sex civil unions
• Catholic Charities closes adoption agency due to same-sex marriage law
• Do Democrats like Chai Feldblum believe in religious liberty?

Filed under: News, Anti-Religious Bigotry, Barack Obama, Bigotry, Bully, Bullying, Celebrate Diversity, Democrat Party, Fascism, Free Speech, Gay, Gay Activism, Gay Agenda, Gay Bushing, Gay Rights, GLBT, Hate Crime, Hate Group, Hate Speech, Hatred, Homosexual, Human Rights Campaign, Intolerance, LGBT, Religious Liberty, Southern Poverty Law Center, Tolerance

Free speech under attack from the secular left in the UK and Canada

Dina tweeted this article from the UK Telegraph by Christina Odone.

Excerpt: (links removed)

Tomorrow the High Court will decide whether a Christian group that helps gays “overcome” their sexual inclination has the right to advertise its services. You may remember that Stonewall, the gay rights group, was allowed to run the slogan: “Some people are gay. Get over it.” on London buses. But when Core Issues Trust (CIT), a Christian group, decided to counter with a poster that read “Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!” Mayor Boris Johnson vetoed their campaign.

If the High Court ruling goes against CIT – as I fear it will – the judgement will prove a setback for free speech, as well as religious freedom. As Philip Johnston writes in today’s Telegraph, ”Just as gays are entitled to extol their own sexual identity, so people who take another view, on whatever grounds, should be allowed to say so, shouldn’t they?”

The problem, as Johnston notes, is that “you might think it is right to muzzle such people because, in reality, they just don’t like gays and are hiding their disapproval behind a spurious religiosity… In some cases that may be true, but it is not the issue here: this is about free speech.”

Our newfound intolerance worries me – and I write more on this on my own website, Freefaith.com. All Britons, and not just those of faith, will be scared of speaking against the prevailing culture.  We’ll watch our words and our backs, terrified of breaking the unwritten code upheld by the guardians of our illiberal establishment. The punishment is not just derision and verbal abuse; in some quarters expressing the wrong sentiment will mean I’ll get a criminal record or a fine. I might even have a minister call for my boss to fire me, as happened to Julie Burchill when she wrote something recently that offended the transgender lobby.

That used to happen, on a regular basis, to journalists living in Stalin’s USSR. Any expression of subversive tendency (ie one that did not tally with the regime’s own viewpoint) could end a hack’s career forever. Or land her in Siberia. Even Lynne Featherstone cannot dispatch her victims in this way, yet. But if tomorrow’s court hearing about the Christian advertising campaign goes against them, I will feel the cold winds of Siberia blowing.

It’s not just in the UK, but Canada, too. The Supreme Court just decided a case where a foolish Christian (the kind I am constantly deriding on this blog) decided to push Christian moral views with Bible verses and vulgar insults in public. The Supreme Court decided that his free speech was criminal. (H/T Keith)

Excerpt:

In an unanimous decision today in the case of Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, the Supreme Court of Canada struck a blow against freedom of speech.

[...]CCF Executive Director and lawyer Chris Schafer said, “The Supreme Court missed an excellent opportunity to rein in the power of various human rights commissions and tribunals to censor the expression of unpopular beliefs and opinions”. Schafer added, “While the Canadian Constitution Foundation does not take any position on the content of the materials distributed by Mr. Whatcott, it believes that it is the right of every Canadian to freely and peacefully express themselves without fear of censorship or persecution by the state. Free expression is the lifeblood of democracies and all forms of expression, especially the offensive kind, needs to be protected. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees.”

I think this Canadian story shows the importance of Christians being intelligent about how they argue against things they oppose. Quoting Bible verses on placards and being insulting is not the same as doing a PhD and then publishing quality arguments and evidence for your point of view. All this offensive person achieved was handing the left the perfect case for them to restrict free speech for everyone. Christians need to be smarter than that, and to know that being persuasive means being articulate and intelligent. Only a complete idiot would quote Bible verses to people who do not accept the Bible, instead of using academic books and academic research. And yet our pious pastors frequently prepare lay Christians to do nothing but quote the Bible to non-Christians, so it is understandable. We need to get better at making cases.

Note that these anti-free-speech laws were passed by the Labor Party in the UK and by the Liberal Party in Canada. It’s the secular left that restricts speech, not the religious right.

Filed under: News, Censorship, Free Speech, Freedom of Speech, Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Tribunal, Intolerance, Supreme Court, Tolerance