California bill to purge Christians from police

#102
#102
Rickyvol77 said:
Again, not what we are talking about...no one is saying actual racial slurs or anti-gay comments on duty (or off duty) is okay.....the point is the grey area latitude of WHAT is considered "hate speech" in Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc. is not as simple as the obvious ones. The article even mentioned that because the California state GOP has "traditional marriage" listed as their main tenet, it could be construed under the ambiguity of the bill defining hate speech as “as advocating or supporting the denial of constitutional rights of, the genocide of, or violence towards, any group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”
Click to expand...

Saying "I don't think gays should be allowed to get married" is tantamount to "I don't think interracial couples should be allowed to get married." If one is hate speech they both are in my opinion. The fact that the California GOP has this as a central tenet doesn't make it okay. Granted, you're free to believe either or both of these things, but if you go around proselytizing it there may be consequences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#103
#103
Wafflestomper said:
Saying "I don't think gays should be allowed to get married" is tantamount to "I don't think interracial couples should be allowed to get married." If one is hate speech they both are in my opinion. The fact that the California GOP has this as a central tenet doesn't make it okay. Granted, you're free to believe either or both of these things, but if you go around proselytizing it there may be consequences.
Click to expand...

How can saying gays shouldn’t get married be the same as interracial couples shouldn’t? Completely different situations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#105
#105
Weezer said:
What if a cop professes atheism and speaks poorly of Christians? Should Christians fear how that officer would treat them?
Click to expand...
If he advocates violence, genocide, or deprivation of constitutional rights, that would fall under the bill’s definition of hate speech. Religion is one of the protected classes in the definition.
 
#111
#111
BigOrangeTrain said:
There is a stark difference between two men or two women getting married as opposed to a man and woman of different color getting married.
Click to expand...

RockyTop85 said:
How do the differences justify refusing to legally recognize a marriage?
Click to expand...

in b4 somebody screeches about pedophilia and/or beastiality as the next logical step.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#115
#115
BigOrangeTrain said:
Why is simply stating an opinion on the matter considered hate speech?
Click to expand...

Hate speech is just a term of art

It seems self-evident that someone who advocates depriving others of constitutional rights on the basis of class membership or status shouldn’t be trusted in a job that that requires respect for the constitutional rights of anybody, much less members of that same class or people with that same status.
 
#117
#117
Wafflestomper said:
I'm pretty sure I'd be fired for going around work telling people that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, or any number of other sensitive issues. I also don't go around work telling people I think their religious beliefs are ridiculous. The trick is to keep your opinions to yourself in a public setting.

If cops are outspoken about their lack of regard for minorities in their community how much trust are those people (or everyone else) going to have in their ability to enforce laws in an unbiased manner?
Click to expand...

Yet, a police would never get fired if he pushed the opposite agenda. You think a homo police would be held to the same standard?
if you get fired for reading the Bible in the office or posting Christian stuff, thats justified?
 
#118
#118
Volgolfer1618 said:
Yet, a police would never get fired if he pushed the opposite agenda. You think a homo police would be held standard?
if you get fired for reading the Bible in the office or posting Christian stuff, tjats justified?
Click to expand...
Which part of the Bible advocates deprivation of constitutional rights, genocide, or violence?
 
#122
#122
ClearwaterVol said:
The issue becomes that when a LEO is entrusted to protect the rights of marginalized people and has publicly expressed a belief that such people don't deserve rights, then it becomes less likely said LEO will perform his duties. That LEO also becomes a legal liability for the department.
Click to expand...
Marginalized? Gmafb
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#125
#125
hog88 said:
.gov needs to get out of the marriage business and just recognize contracted civil unions.
Click to expand...

Hot take incoming:

The government doesn't care about your church wedding now. Basically a governmental marriage subjects you to laws regarding government benefits, division of property if you die without a will or get divorced, etc. Same as a civil union they just call it marriage and vice versa. I'm not aware of any law that says, "you have to get a marriage license to have a religious wedding ceremony."

If religious folk don't want the government meddling in their religious institution, go get religiously married and skip the trip to county clerks office. You just won't get the civil law benefits.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top