As illustrated in the comics posted by Adam, the bill does not actually say anything about hate "thoughts" or condemn preachers for speaking out against homosexuality. The bill is about hate crimes. It's about expanding the definition of such a crime and then punishing those who commit them. It writes no new laws, it's an expansion, so it's not making anything new illegal.
Those on the right are spreading lies to try and kill a bill that would protect those whom the church find "immoral." Oh wait. The church has no legal authority. Darn. I guess the bill's fine how it is then. 🙄
Originally posted by Strangelove
As illustrated in the comics posted by Adam, the bill does not actually say anything about hate "thoughts" or condemn preachers for speaking out against homosexuality. The bill is about hate [b]crimes. It's about expanding the definition of such a crime and then punishing those who commit them. It writes no new laws, it's an expansion, so it's not making anything new illegal.Those on the right are spreading lies to try and kill a bill that would protect those whom the church find "immoral." Oh wait. The church has no legal authority. Darn. I guess the bill's fine how it is then. 🙄 [/B]
The first quote by Mr. Pence, who was the same guy that said that Baghdad was like a farmers market in the summer time in Indiana? This is the guy you want to prove you right?
Your second quote has already been addressed, hasn't it?
Again, quote me the part of the actual bill that addresses preventing freedom of speech for the religious, not across the aisle propoganda that has been pointed out to be a blatant lie, utilized to prevent the federal government from making even the smallest step towards legitimizing homosexuality.
As I've said, the religious right doesn't want any legislation that validates homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle because that is a "slippery slope" towards gay marriage.
For example, in a 2004 case in Philadelphia, 11 individuals were arrested at OutFest, a gay pride festival.
This is the incident mentioned on the new national commercial where the elderly black woman is saying that she had been arrested for spreading teh truth of god at a gay pride celebration. She has also been proven a liar. She was not peacefully reading bible scripture...and when they were reading bible scripture, there were others in teh group shouting at the people who were there for the festival that they would burn in hell and that god hates ****.
Even gay people would have no problem with them if they were just standing on teh corner handing out pamphlets and reading bible scripture.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 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?”Chairman John Conyers and Congressional Democrats kept evading the issue, providing reasons why they could not accept the amendment until Rep. Lundgren demanded, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?”
At that point Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama candidly said, “Yes.”
Originally posted by FeceMan
In the text I keep, you know, quoting.
Which part? Point it out to me where they (the Democrats) "admitted" that the legislation would allow for a pastor to be arreested for saying that homosexuality was wrong and that they would be held responsible for their congregation's actions outside of their church?
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 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?”Chairman John Conyers and Congressional Democrats kept evading the issue, providing reasons why they could not accept the amendment until Rep. Lundgren demanded, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?”
At that point Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama candidly said, “Yes.”
Originally posted by FeceMan
Okay. Now, point out to me where it says such in the legislation? I'm positive you've read it! You'd have to have considering that it's your rights and the rights of your pastor that are in jeopardy.
After hours of debate, you honestly expect me to believe that the "democrat" would just go..."oh, yes"
From where did this quote you keep posting come?
Originally posted by FeceMan
It doesn't say that, specifically, and I have read the bill. If, however, the proponents of the bill admit such a thing, then it can be assumed that, should such an event occur, the admissions accurately reflect events that would take place.
So you're saying that the congressional record is going to read that a democrat said that this legislation will allow for pastors being charged and arrested for the actions of their congregation outside of the church?
Again, where did you get this quote?
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/apr/07042601.html
There are many other websites that share this same information, and I believe there's a video of the debate on the bill.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/apr/07042601.html
Come on man, from this site? Really? Why would you present that as an impartial article or quote, considering the source?
When I get a little more time, I'll check the congressional record. I just can't believe the entire debate ended there, with a single defeated "yes".