Quote:

Homosexual Marriage In Canada Killing Free Speech December 14, 2006 -- The imposition of homosexual marriage upon Canada is having a chilling effect on freedom of speech and religious freedom in that nation. Gwendolyn Landolt, vice president of REAL Women of Canada has recently commented on the dangerous anti-freedom trends in Canada over homosexual marriage. Writing in The Hamilton Spectator, Landolt notes: The legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada has put law and religion on a collision course. The Catholic organization, the Knights of Columbus, in Port Coquitlam, B.C., was required to pay a fine for causing ‘hurt feelings,’ when it denied the use of the organization’s hall to a lesbian couple to celebrate their wedding. Religion-based social services, such as counseling and adoption services, are now required to conform to the same-sex marriage law. The tax-exempt status of churches has become the subject of intimidation and harassment. School boards in Quebec and Ontario, especially in Toronto, Hamilton and London, now require homosexual “education” in their school systems. Such programs do not provide balanced instruction on the issue, and the medical, psychological, and legal impact of homosexuality are not mentioned. TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty isn’t surprised by what’s happening in Canada. “The destruction of religious freedom and free speech in Canada is a frightening reminder of what is going to happen in the United States if homosexual marriage is legalized state-by-state,” said Lafferty. “U.S.-based homosexual groups are working feverishly to undermine religious freedom and free speech through marriage lawsuits, hate crime laws and other legislation designed to give homosexuals federally-protected minority status. We cannot permit them to win!” Lafferty warns that with the Democrat-controlled Congress taking power in 2007, we will face renewed threats to our freedom of speech and religion. “Homosexuals and their allies in Congress will begin pushing for passage of pro-homosexual, anti-religious freedom legislation such as “hate/thought crime’ laws, homosexuals in the military, domestic partnership laws, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which has been defeated by a Republican-controlled Congress.” (These reports will be updated once new legislation is introduced in 2007.) During the 109th Congress, pro-homosexuals in Congress offered a wide range of bills that would provide special minority protections for homosexuals. These included: A bill to overturn the military’s ban on open homosexuals; a resolution calling for a “Day of Silence” for homosexuals in schools; a family & medical leave act that would treat homosexuals couples as though they were married under the law; and a bill that would have made homosexual behavior a protected minority under federal employment laws. Expect these to be reintroduced in the Democrat-controlled Congress. Read more about the death of religious freedom and speech here: The “Privilege of Speech” in a “Pleasantly Authoritarian Country”: How Canada’s Judiciary Allowed Laws Proscribing Discourse Critical of Homosexuality to Trump Free Speech and Religious Liberty.

Article link.

Quote:

Homosexual Marriage In Canada Killing Free Speech December 14, 2006 -- The imposition of homosexual marriage upon Canada is having a chilling effect on freedom of speech and religious freedom in that nation. Gwendolyn Landolt, vice president of REAL Women of Canada has recently commented on the dangerous anti-freedom trends in Canada over homosexual marriage. Writing in The Hamilton Spectator, Landolt notes: The legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada has put law and religion on a collision course. The Catholic organization, the Knights of Columbus, in Port Coquitlam, B.C., was required to pay a fine for causing ‘hurt feelings,’ when it denied the use of the organization’s hall to a lesbian couple to celebrate their wedding. Religion-based social services, such as counseling and adoption services, are now required to conform to the same-sex marriage law. The tax-exempt status of churches has become the subject of intimidation and harassment. School boards in Quebec and Ontario, especially in Toronto, Hamilton and London, now require homosexual “education” in their school systems. Such programs do not provide balanced instruction on the issue, and the medical, psychological, and legal impact of homosexuality are not mentioned. TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty isn’t surprised by what’s happening in Canada. “The destruction of religious freedom and free speech in Canada is a frightening reminder of what is going to happen in the United States if homosexual marriage is legalized state-by-state,” said Lafferty. “U.S.-based homosexual groups are working feverishly to undermine religious freedom and free speech through marriage lawsuits, hate crime laws and other legislation designed to give homosexuals federally-protected minority status. We cannot permit them to win!” Lafferty warns that with the Democrat-controlled Congress taking power in 2007, we will face renewed threats to our freedom of speech and religion. “Homosexuals and their allies in Congress will begin pushing for passage of pro-homosexual, anti-religious freedom legislation such as “hate/thought crime’ laws, homosexuals in the military, domestic partnership laws, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which has been defeated by a Republican-controlled Congress.” (These reports will be updated once new legislation is introduced in 2007.) During the 109th Congress, pro-homosexuals in Congress offered a wide range of bills that would provide special minority protections for homosexuals. These included: A bill to overturn the military’s ban on open homosexuals; a resolution calling for a “Day of Silence” for homosexuals in schools; a family & medical leave act that would treat homosexuals couples as though they were married under the law; and a bill that would have made homosexual behavior a protected minority under federal employment laws. Expect these to be reintroduced in the Democrat-controlled Congress. Read more about the death of religious freedom and speech here: The “Privilege of Speech” in a “Pleasantly Authoritarian Country”: How Canada’s Judiciary Allowed Laws Proscribing Discourse Critical of Homosexuality to Trump Free Speech and Religious Liberty.

Article link.

This is actually a "discourse" I am currently embroiled in. My contention is that sexual orientation is about which gender you like, not which gender you hate and want to get lawyers to screw.

Apparently it is an infringement on the "gay rights" of a lesbian to have her promoting of hatred of heterosexual men questioned or criticized in any manner shape or form. Frankly, I have froliced in a jacuzzi with a lesbian couple, not that THAT is anybody's business and I have no problem with gay couples having succession and benefit rights...hey love is a many splendored thing. My conflict is not about "love" it is about hatred with a political agenda specifically "political lesbianism" one of the definitions and the orthodox form of "feminism".

Fortunately I am not an Innkeeper, teacher, employer, nor do I provide goods or services that would be subject to action by any "human rights"tribunal. But somehow some people have a notion that it applies to everybody.

This is actually a "discourse" I am currently embroiled in. My contention is that sexual orientation is about which gender you like, not which gender you hate and want to get lawyers to screw.

Apparently it is an infringement on the "gay rights" of a lesbian to have her promoting of hatred of heterosexual men questioned or criticized in any manner shape or form. Frankly, I have froliced in a jacuzzi with a lesbian couple, not that THAT is anybody's business and I have no problem with gay couples having succession and benefit rights...hey love is a many splendored thing. My conflict is not about "love" it is about hatred with a political agenda specifically "political lesbianism" one of the definitions and the orthodox form of "feminism".

Fortunately I am not an Innkeeper, teacher, employer, nor do I provide goods or services that would be subject to action by any "human rights"tribunal. But somehow some people have a notion that it applies to everybody.