aWrRoq vnbayxbkqvui, hhgpxvcvkayd, [link=http://guwxcatdkmlk.com/]guwxcatdkmlk[/link], http://eqqmabpwblla.com/
Isn't there some way to just disband the whole 9th district court? What a discrase. They bring shame on the US from everyone watching around the world. :roll:
This is the type of thing that creates such tension in our society.
I am not homophobic, but I promise you, tomorrow, I will be called such because we are addressing this issue on air.
The enlightened crowd and the gay activists do not want to simply spread their message. They want to deny others who disagree with them to spread theirs.
Many us of are tired of it. I know that I am.
If the gay activists crowd wants to put out their message, I don't really care. I can ignore it. When they, however, seek to deny those who disagree with what they are selling from putting forth their message, they are being intolerant ..... AND .... as we all now know
Intolerance is a crime worse than death in American today .... unless it is intolerance against conservative, Christian ideals .... then of course, intolerance is noble
If there were ever a case for impeachment here it is. Where is the ACLU?
I understand the reaction to this report. I think 1st amendment case law in this country is out of control. But, I don't think this article accurately describes the 9th circuit's decision. No where in the written decision does the appeals court say that terms like "family values" or "natural family" are "hate speech".
Often times, whether someone prevails on appeal has to do with what standard of review the appeals court is allowed to apply. According to the written decision, most of the issues raised on appeal were not properly presented or briefed so the court could not address them. Sounds like bad lawyering rather than bad judging.
The greater issue for me Virgil is not the court ruling. It is the action in the workplace. Court rulings are often overturned.
Workplace actions are often not reported simply because of the hassle and hostile environment it creates for the individual.
I think the work place conditions in this country surrounding what a person can or cannot say or do without fear of offending someone else's sensibilities is out of control.
The current status of the law in this area is just one of many examples of where the government has taken something (freedom of speech) that is supposed to be a protection of the people against the majority and its government, and has turned it into a weapon to be used by the government against the people to enforce compliance and assimilation.
I only made that previous post because people were calling for disbanding the 9th circuit and impeaching those judges. There are more than a few 9th circuit opinions that people on this forum would approve of. Often times, their decisions are applications of Supreme Court precedent cases that go to show just how absurd those precedent cases are, which I see as an attempt by the 9th circuit to get the SC to fix its precedent and get it right.
I think the 9th District is whacked out, but until the vast majority grows a backbone, this stuff will keep happening.
Unfortunately, when the day of push back comes, it is going to be very messy.
Without access to the decisions referred to in the memorandum, this is a tempest in a teapot.
Virgil; Can you give me an example of a "good" 9th district ruling? There are probably some, but they are noted for producing some, IMO, crazy rulings.
Isn't there some way to just disband the whole 9th district court?
Yea, with a rope! However, the national will is not there to take such drastic measures.
If there was a muslim group that posted a flier on the board equating Christians as non-family...or not traditional values...so come to our group, the true family values group...
I think many would be up in arms.
This was meant to make those gay employees feel less. It is work place for all employees the gay posts on the board did nothing to harm Christians...
The employee who fought this could have put down Christian prayer group...or Christian meeting...and would have had no issue.
Why is this a problem for gay activists, and not caused by Christian activists?
Please, show me with quotes where these people accused homosexuals of anything? Please show me where they directly printed any opposition to homosexuality. It isn't there. There seems to be a lot of inference happening here.
I don't see where in the 1st Amendment it says "Unless you might hurt someone's feelings or offend them." The Militiant Gay Lobby has to learn that the Constitution doesn't just apply to them and what they feel.
Let me get my understanding on this...
This board...used to post gay-straight alliance (no anti-Christian posts)
Then a conservative Christian posts :
Good News Employee Associations is a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family values
Using well know "political" terms to put down gay families or other families that are not mom/dad/kids...
This is a work place...the judge finds
..."Public employers are permitted to curtail employee speech as long as their 'legitimate administrative interests' outweigh the employee's interest in freedom of speech," said the court's opinion by judges B. Fletcher, Clifton and Ikuta, who noted that their writings are "not appropriate for publication."
The woman hires the pro-family law center who states:
"We are going to take this case right up the steps of the United States Supreme Court," said Richard D. Ackerman, who along with Scott Lively argued the case for the Pro-Family Law Center
"We are simply unwilling to accept that Christians can be completely silenced on the issues of the day â€“ especially on issues such as same-sex marriage, parental rights, and free speech rights," he said
And gay activists are to blame?
I guess if you close your eyes...tap your shoes three times...you could get there...maybe.
You think that "Natural Family, Marriage and Family values" are political terms, then you must also think that the raising of your family is a political act.
That is sooo gay.
Dist..it is you and your ilk that have controlled that language however wrong it is. Like I said...people can get divorced 3 times and to your friends that is "traditional family"...
Ah, well...nice living under that rock.
Why should there be any discussion of this in the workplace?
That is the problem, they are there to work, not discuss all of the this stuff.
The workplace is not townsquare, where work time is used to put forth agendas.
Personal agendas should not exist in the workplace, particularly the taxpayer funded workplace
Ok, I want ot make sure I have this straight.
The gay-straight allianance posts about their agenda to further homosexual issues, and that is ok. But when another group posts to further their agenda, that is not ok.
Ahh, I think I am starting to understand tolerance now. :?
So, If I say the words "Family Values" do I need to go to rehab?
These are my last thoughts on this...again, I have much more important things to do than keep banging my head against the wall....
No one was going to deny the Christian woman or her members from meeting and discussing anything they wish. Could they talk about what they thought "traditional values"...sure. Can the gay straight group do the same...sure.
However, where did the gay straight group post anything that was derogatory against Christians....tick, tock, tick...they didn't. The woman posting the Christian group made her intentions clear.
You can still say whatever you like out in public...however, in the workplace..the employer is expected to make the enviroment as friendly to everyone as possible.
These are my last thoughts on this...
Somehow I doubt that very much, but we can certainly have hope! :wink:
Charlotte, The homosexual activists called the Christians "Hateful Bigots".
This happens all the time, as I'm sure you recall from your recent outing in Augusta.
Charlotte, this is from the original article:
In fact, one city official even used the e-mail system to declare the Bible "needs updating," but no actions were taken against those individuals.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Yet again, the Socialist Liberal double standard rears its ugly head. It's okay to censor anything Christian, Conservative, or not in line with the Socialist Agenda, and scream for the 1st Amendment whenever anyone dares to censor the "Progressive" lobby.
I am still trying to figure out where the christian group said anything derogatory towards gays.
As I make my living by providing legal services to those in need of them, I probably read more court opinions than most. I can say with absolute certainty that news reports describing what a court decided or ruled in any particular case are invariably wrong and tend to sensationalize the outcome. The article cite at the outset of this thread is a good example.
That being said, there are some 9th circuit opinions that I like for the legal reasoning that was used by the court. I do not think they are simply an appeals court with a liberal bent. In particular I really enjoy their attempt to follow the Renquist Court's lead in re-igniting federalism as a legitimate constraint on our runaway federal government.
Some recent cases I can think of are US v. Raich and US v. Stewart. Raich was the medicial marijuana case about whether Congress's power under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce was so broad that it could regulate (prohibit) possession of marijuana that did not travel interstate, was not for possessed for a commercial purpose and was possessed by prescription in compliance to state law. The 9th circuit said that Congress could not regulate it. While the subject matter may not be a favorite among "conservatives" this decision was completely consistent with the Supreme Court's decision that struck down the federal law that created victim disarmament zones around school, which virtually all pro-gun rights people cheered. And to show they are not simply pursuing a liberal agende, by following similar reasoning in the US v. Stewart case, the 9th circuit struck down a conviction when they ruled that the federal ban on machine guns did not reach a defendant who possessed a completely homemade machine gun that did not travel in interstate commerce.
Another 9th circuit case I liked- for a different reason, which I'll explain- was the one involving the athiest father who objected to his daughter going to a public school where they recited the Pledge of Alleigience that included "under God". There, the 9th circ. said that language did violate the establishment clause of Amend. 1. I liked that case because they looked at the Supreme Court's precedent cases on religion in public schools and applied them properly. In a way, I think they were saying to the Supreme Court that your cases on this stuff is crazy, so fix it. And when it went to he Supreme Court, that is exactly what Justice Thomas (another proclaimed conservative favorite) did in his separate opinion. He basically said to the other Justices, look our case law on this stuff is loopy and it led to this absurd result about the pledge of allegience. Let's take this time now to fix it and set it right.
Of course, they didn't.
I don't know. Maybe I'm all alone on this. But I don't think the 9th circuit can so easily be labeled and dismissed as a biased, liberal agenda machine.
The phrase "family values" is somehow now a gay slur?????????????
Family values to me means lifting up the traditional family of a loving father and a loving mother, married, raising and supporting their children in a loving manner.
A traditional family is still the model that is best for children.
In my mind, the phrase "family values" speaks much more to un-wed mothers and deadbeat dads then it does gays.
Okay, lets see who will argue with this statement.
The best environment to raise a child is with a loving father and a loving mother who are committed to their family through marriage and devotion to each other and their child(ren).
Who here thinks that statement is an attack on some group as opposed to an ideal that should be supported and lifted up?
This case is another example of why the idea of "hate speech" that can be suppressed by the government is a risky proposition that poses a danger to free speech rights more that more than outweighs and beneficial value it may have, even if applied properly.
there are four major definitions according to the U.S. census Bureau: the traditional nuclear family (married couple with their biological children), Nuclear Family (two parents and their children, biological, adopted,step- or foster), Blended family(consiting of step-children/parents or half-siblings) and extended family(one parent, one or more children and one or more family members...ie grandma and grandpa raising their grandchild) Furukawa 1994
Don't go trying to find that exact paragraph, I paraphrased it from one of my nursing text books, Wong's Essentials of pediatric Nursing which, unless you have a code from one of the text books, you are not able to enter the site to find it. However, if you are able to get your hands on a copy of the sixth edition of this book it's on page 37.
Therefore, I've come to the conclusion that, according to the US census bureau, that traditionl family is male/female unit, married, with no children prior to their marriage, and that a gay/lesbian family would fall under the nuclear family description.
I still don't see where "traditional family values" are a hateful term........could someone please clue me in here?
If i'm gay/lesbian, and teach my children "family values" that i wish installed in them, like "we don't let adults touch us in certain places, unless it be a dr for a necessary examination" am i not still teaching "family values"? is that not a "traditional" value? Just because I may not share all of the same family values as my neighbor next door, am I still not teaching "traditional family values"? I am straight, may go to church, and my neighbor who also is straight, may not, does that mean that they are not teaching their children "traditional family values"? Everyone's definition of family values is different to one degree or another. When we, as a country cannot agree that everyone has a right to their own definition of a phrase, and our finding ourselves in court everytime someone disagrees with the way we define it, well then it's time we took another look at ourselves, cause in due time, i see a revolt comming on.