I asked Babba to repost this article because I believe this bill is a travesty, and is in violation of the Separation of Church and State. We here at Infidel Bloggers Alliance are supporters of gay rights, and accept gays as fellow Infidels (because, we are all co-targets of the Islamic Jihad). That being said, fuck every single seditionist asshole who voted for this bill, and fuck the Governor for signing it into law. I hope you choke to death on a copy of Constitution as you attempt to devour it.
This post originally ran at the Outraged Spleen of Zion on 6/19/08
After 400 years of religious freedom for those who wanted to own and distribute Bibles on their own property in America, the Governor of Colorado has put an end to it. SB08-200, signed into law last week will prohibit the issuing, circulating, and distributing of Leviticus 20:13:
If 834 a man376 also lie7901 with854 mankind,2145 as he lieth4904 with a woman,802 both8147 of them have committed6213 an abomination:8441 they shall surely be put to death;4191 4191 their blood1818 shall be upon them.While churches are exempted for now, Christian schools, Christian book stores, private business, etc. are not.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCEWITH "BIBLICAL HATE SPEECH" REDACTED.
 | | |
| BILL: | SB08-205 | |
| TIME: | 01:58:21 PM | |
| MOVED: | Levy | |
| MOTION: | Refer Senate Bill 08-200 to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation. The motion passed on a vote of 6-3, with 2 excused. | |
| SECONDED: | Carroll M. | |
| VOTE | |
| Carroll M. | Yes |
| Gardner B. | Excused |
| Jahn | Yes |
| Kerr A. | Yes |
| King | No |
| Levy | Yes |
| Marshall | Yes |
| Roberts | No |
| Stephens | No |
| Stafford | Excused |
| Carroll T. | Yes |
Final YES: 6 NO: 3 EXC: 2 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS | ||
AUDIO COMMENTARY ON THIS EVENT: PASTOR KEVIN SWANSON, GENERATIONS RADIO
Kevin Swanson's Generations Radio Page
BTW... there is not ONE story on this in the MSM that I can find at the moment.
NOT ONE! If anyone can find anything please post it in the thread
Kevin Swanson's Generations Radio Page
BTW... there is not ONE story on this in the MSM that I can find at the moment.
NOT ONE! If anyone can find anything please post it in the thread
See Also: the last Pastor Hagee post, which has much related material,
and Denizens of Denver Definitely Desire Deity Dead
and Denizens of Denver Definitely Desire Deity Dead
Israel & the New Breed
I am a Friend of GOD
Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the adversary (Satan) will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.
~ Revelation 2:10
~ Revelation 2:10
I GOT A WORD! IN MAH MOUTH!And the Sons of Mary smile and are blessed--they know the angels are on their side: They know in them is the Grace confessed, and for them are the Mercies multiplied; They sit at the Feet, they hear the Word, they see how truly the Promise runs; They have cast their burden upon the Lord, and--the Lord He lays it on Martha's sons!
~ Rudyard Kipling
Topic: Work
Source: The Sons of Mary
Another blog post found by Mama Winger on this:
~ Rudyard Kipling
Topic: Work
Source: The Sons of Mary
Another blog post found by Mama Winger on this:
Biblical Message a Crime in Colorado
Hausknecht says that religious publishers could be charged under the law for publishing biblical condemnation of homosexuality. “There are those who simply by publishing Christian materials could find themselves charged with a violation of this statute,” he said.
UPDATE:
however, we have friends in CO who have been following this story, and the news is bad: because the measure was pushed through as an "emergency measure" there is little to no recourse against it. meaning, there won't be a referendum about it on any ballot, etc.
~ blue_like_jazz
however, we have friends in CO who have been following this story, and the news is bad: because the measure was pushed through as an "emergency measure" there is little to no recourse against it. meaning, there won't be a referendum about it on any ballot, etc.
~ blue_like_jazz
THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."
6 comments:
Babba -- your picture is the Constitution, not Declaration. You may want to correct the caption.
Sauce for the goose...
"Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews."
HATE SPEECH
BAN IT
FOR STARTERS
Here's the text of th Bill itself:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2008A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/BD7A295EB6F4460E872573F5005D0148?Open&file=200_enr.pdf
especially Section 5 24-34-502,
Section 6 24-34-601, Section 8 24-34-701
Let me state at the top I am against any legislation of morality, sexuality etc. The Constitution is clear when it separates Church and State. And my classic Libertarian leanings tell me you do what you want, I'll do what I want, as long as no one gets hurt it's all good. And the government has no business in it.
Now, reading the bill (and I don't think it is it's final draft as signed) I don't see the church and state issue here. In fact it states this shall not apply to churches, synagogues etc seemingly to avoid that very issue.
To me it reads more like an anti-discrimination bill. It prohibits anyone from saying we won't rent/serve gays, blacks, Catholics etc. nor can you, as an owner of a hotel, restaurant etc have printed material that says we won't serve gays, blacks, Catholics etc. nor say anything or print anything that demeans or otherwise makes them feel uncomfortable for being gays, blacks, Catholics etc. In that I would say it is Banning Hate Speech Lite, as Epa proposes. It's not prohibiting the printing of the Bible or Torah or Tanekh or passages from them. It is saying you can't print them then start shoving them in peoples faces saying "Look - the Bible says gay people like you are going to go to hell and I don't want you in here" IF THEY OWN A PUBLIC BUSINESS WITHIN THAT BUSINESS (which is a First Amendment Free Speech Issue).
For Heaven's sake if that's what it said then Border's, Barnes and Noble et. al. would have to close down their religion section.
Maybe I'm just dunderheaded today but I'm not reading it the same way Babba Zee is.
But let me state again I'm opposed to the bill or any such as a whole. Gov't has no business legislating morality and (using gays ONLY AS AN EXAMPLE) either protecting or prohibiting protection of gay rights.
I don't care if you're white black red yellow gay straight bi trans Jewish Catholic Hindu I really don't give a fuck it makes no difference to me you have the same rights I do as a person.
If more folks would just live and let live we wouldn't be having these discussions.
But the mean old world doesn't work that way.
I'm sorry, MR. My understanding is the bill says you can't print said quotation and distribute the leaflets in a public place.
Does it say that, or not?
Should it be a crime to be able to distribute such leaflets? I don't think so.
In a place of business, well, that's another thing. But then, is it? People can have a sign up that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." So, they can print Leviticus as the right, if that's what they want to do.
And, it is a Church/State issue, because it's an expression of religious feeling in the public and private sector. We have such a right.
We have the right to have Jesus bumper stickers on our cars. And, we have the right to print tracts with Leviticus verses on them in our place of business.
Am I misunderstanding something?
Pasto -- first of all I agree. I said that outright I don't think there should be such a bill in any Gov't, state Fed or local.
And also I agree it flies in the face of the 1st amendment Free Speech.
24-34-701. Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden. No
person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent,
or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement,
directly or indirectly, by himself or herself or through another person shall
publish, issue, circulate, send, distribute, give away, or display in any way,
manner, or shape or by any means or method, except as provided in this
section, any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript, book,
pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or advertisement of any kind, nature,
or description which THAT is intended or calculated to discriminate or
actually discriminates against any disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL
ORIENTATION, marital status, national origin, or ancestry or against any of
the members thereof in the matter of furnishing or neglecting or refusing to
furnish to them or any one of them any lodging, housing, schooling, or
tuition or any accommodation, right, privilege, advantage, or convenience
offered to or enjoyed by the general public or which states that any of the
accommodations, rights, privileges, advantages, or conveniences of any
PAGE 8-SENATE BILL 08-200
such place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement shall or will be
refused, withheld from, or denied to any person or class of persons on
account of disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital
status, national origin, or ancestry or that the patronage, custom, presence,
frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging at such place by any person or
class of persons belonging to or purporting to be of any particular disability,
race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status, national origin,
or ancestry is unwelcome or objectionable or not acceptable, desired, or
solicited.
It does not prohibit the printing of it. That would violate the church section and the free speech. It prohibits printing it and using it as a tool to discriminate. My understanding of that is you can say Hey, you might be interested in reading this. But can't say Hey, you might be interested in reading this because you're a fag and I don't want you in here. You can't print a sign no fags allowed, no niggers allowed etc. I don't see the church and state issue because it is not limiting it to speech tied to religion. It is saying any speech. I may just not like gays because they're gay, not because I find it morally reprehensible.
Now, that said, again I would oppose this anyway. But if you want to ban hate speech, as Epa suggests, then how do you go about it and not trample on the First Amendment one way or another and how can you be opposed to something like this? (that's hypothetical devil's advocate, not directed squarely at you or Epa)
Post a Comment