There is just no credible evidence in that post to believe this incident even occured in the way it's reported; I doubt the accuracy of this second-hand report from some American religious wingnut.As we all know, those people only hear what they want to hear.
Of course it didn't happen that way. But you know, that's never stopped a good right-wing tale of martyrdom.
Some day (prolly sooner than later) one of these paranoid schizophrenics - armed to the teeth, no less - will misinterpret a casual glance from some stranger and unload a couple of clips from his glock 9, or whatever, into someone for 'persecuting him with a disaproving glance'. See, that'll learn the (insert derogitory term for liberal here) for stomping all over my constitutional rights, FFS!
It would be interesting to check with the HRC to see if this ever happened and whether there's any validity to the claims being made. The curriculum has to be approved by the police to ensure there's no "criminal activity"... Come on. Since when? That's beyond ridiculous.
Three pages of FD comments and not once are any of the details questionned.These people are rubes, being screwed over by their own kind.
Has any person in Canada ever been charged with, never mind convicted of, a hate crime for preaching against homosexuality from a church pulpit?I don't know if this has ever happened, but I don't think so Can anyone cite a case where it has?
I really do suspect this is a complete fabrication. It just sounds far too hokey. Not to mention the super secrecy surrounding the identity of the individual in question. Yeah, like some HRC functionary would alert CBSA and have the guy hassled at the border. Um, sorry folks, but it just doesn't work that way. More likely this is just part of the panhandling effort FDA and other whiners like Five Feet of Fraud™ are carrying on.
Well you can go to the Catholic Diocese of Calgary and read a whole sermon on how homosexuality is a sin. I don't think the bishop is in jail for it.Diocese of Calgary Bishops Sermons: "Straight Talk II"“... basing [sic] itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (2357 )I think that qualifies.
And this bishop is totally obsessed on homosexuality. He has 3 sermons called "Straight Talk" I, II and III on how bad homosexuality is. A sermon on the "Freedom of Religion", evidently to remake the state in its own image in order to deny gays the right to marry. And then a sermon called "On Same Sex Marriage" which deals with it per se. Plus about 10 other sermons that tells people that unless they put the right tab into the right slot they are going to hell. For a celibate, this guy thinks about sex more than I do.Bishops Pages - SermonsAnd you wonder why people think the church is nothing but a sexual regulation society.
“... basing [sic] itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (2357 )I think that qualifies.---------Nope. Not legally. Also, it's the acts of homosexuality that are being condemned here, not the people. These people are VERY careful not to say that gays themselves are Teh Evil. It's the things they do! It's sin, like any other. The difference is that no one wants to call some other sin a valid 'lifestyle' or somesuch.Now, of course, MANY people don't grok the distinction, and I'm pretty sure they don't try to make it all that clear. But from a legal standpoint, this isn't hate speech.Disclaimer: Not Catholic. Not an apologist for them. Don't think homosex is a sin. Also, not straight. Let's call me 'bent'. :)
Post a Comment