|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Dec 2, 2011 1:05:42 GMT -5
Except no one was denying them the right to say it. Criticism of someone's statement does not infringe on their free speech. You are attacking a strawman. Oh come on, it was pretty strongly implied on the first page they don't have the right to their highly unpopular opinion. You're going to have to provide a quote here, LHM, because I read the first page and I don't see anyone saying something like "People with racist opinions should be thrown in jail." All I see are a bunch of people being disgusted (and rightfully so) at the church's actions.
|
|
|
Post by SCarpelan on Dec 2, 2011 1:13:34 GMT -5
Except no one was denying them the right to say it. Criticism of someone's statement does not infringe on their free speech. You are attacking a strawman. Oh come on, it was pretty strongly implied on the first page they don't have the right to their highly unpopular opinion. The only thing close to that implication was disappointment and anger for there being enough support for banning interracial marriages for the church to actually ban it. Nobody implied they had no right to have the opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Dec 2, 2011 1:28:21 GMT -5
Even if this church is a private organization, is it not still completely unconstitutional?
Or is this one of those times when the fundies will be screaming that seperation of Church and State actually exists?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 2, 2011 1:31:54 GMT -5
Oh come on, it was pretty strongly implied on the first page they don't have the right to their highly unpopular opinion. You're going to have to provide a quote here, LHM, because I read the first page and I don't see anyone saying something like "People with racist opinions should be thrown in jail." All I see are a bunch of people being disgusted (and rightfully so) at the church's actions. Indeed, which implies they don't have the right to their opinions. Even if this church is a private organization, is it not still completely unconstitutional? No because private organisations aren't beholden to the constitution the way government agencies are. Same as how the Catholic Church isn't compelled to hire women priests, even though their discrimination is clearly unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Dec 2, 2011 1:39:38 GMT -5
Ah okay. That must be an American thing then because this would never fly in Canada.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 2, 2011 1:41:10 GMT -5
Ah okay. That must be an American thing then because this would never fly in Canada. Yet the Canadian Catholic church has a male only priesthood, does it not?
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Dec 2, 2011 1:59:51 GMT -5
Ah okay. That must be an American thing then because this would never fly in Canada. That's why and because you're all godless commies.
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Dec 2, 2011 2:16:49 GMT -5
Yet the Canadian Catholic church has a male only priesthood, does it not? It's true that the Catholic Church denies women preisthood in Canada, but I meant that denying interracial couples marriage or attendance in church activities are what would not fly. Sorry I should have clarified. Though the fact that they cannot deny those things listed above, and yet, still discriminate against women and homosexuals is RAEG inducing to me. (edit: multiple spelling fail)
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Dec 2, 2011 2:28:16 GMT -5
You're going to have to provide a quote here, LHM, because I read the first page and I don't see anyone saying something like "People with racist opinions should be thrown in jail." All I see are a bunch of people being disgusted (and rightfully so) at the church's actions. Indeed, which implies they don't have the right to their opinions. Uh, no. With that standpoint, how is it supposed to be possible to criticize someone's (legal) actions?
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Dec 2, 2011 3:51:50 GMT -5
No one is saying they don;t have a right to their opinions. They do. They can think whatever they want.
And, in turn, we are completely entitled to think they are heartless backwood bigots who need a firm shove into the 21st century.
Having said that, while they are free to THINK what they like, they are not free to ACT on those thoughts, especially when those thoughts and beliefs and ideals deny goods or services or rights to certain groups of people based on things over which they have no control (their skin colour, their sex, their sexuality, and so on).
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Dec 2, 2011 5:44:07 GMT -5
Okay, you misinterpreted our reaction to the notion they shouldn't have an opinion. On the other hand, trying to insist that we are rather than just saying "my bad, I misunderstood" is what's getting you in hot water here.
Cait is accurate in her last post in this thread as well. They have a right to their opinion, but we also have a right to be disgusted by people thinking anyone other than the white race is just subhuman trash.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 2, 2011 5:53:45 GMT -5
of course everone has the right to their opinion. Just, you know, 2 way street, no matter how unpalatable. Again.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Dec 2, 2011 6:17:13 GMT -5
DO NOT. FUCKING TELL ME. THAT YOU ARE DEFENDING. RACISTS. SERIOUSLY. DO NOT MOTHERFUCKING TELL ME THAT. I'm thinking this is a fairly good example of, THEY TOTALLY SHOULDN"T BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THAT IS WRONG. Maybe it's just the capslock talking. Seriously, on three, everyone take both hands and remove both the sticks and the semantics from your assses. One quick movement and it'll all be over.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 2, 2011 6:35:09 GMT -5
You're going to have to provide a quote here, LHM, because I read the first page and I don't see anyone saying something like "People with racist opinions should be thrown in jail." All I see are a bunch of people being disgusted (and rightfully so) at the church's actions. Indeed, which implies they don't have the right to their opinions. ...Showing disgust towards someone's opinion implies they don't have the right to their opinion? What? Well guys, I guess we should shut down FSTDT then.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 2, 2011 7:01:53 GMT -5
What Distind said.
|
|