jefferiah

People say people are immoral all the time. People on here have said it about George Bush, Americans, etc etc.

Sure people have a right to believe something is immoral and to say it. To Jews for instance eating pork is unclean. I eat pork. I am not clean, not kosher. But I dont sue Jews because they believe this. And the fact that they believe something is wrong does not mean they hate the person who does it either. And if the law restricts them from saying such things then how on earth could they communicate their belief to new converts? Some people think smoking pot is wrong. Some people think it is ok. Some people who think it is wrong might think it is wrong for everyone. Saying that is not infringing on someone else's right to believe otherwise. That is not a crime. If you don't agree that it is wrong, you can simply not agree. When I was a teenager I smoked pot. But when my parents found out they did not like it and they were not happy with me. They believed pot was wrong, not just for them but also for me. At the time I ignored them. Now I agree, but I was free to ignore them. The fact that someone believes what you do is wrong (whether you agree with their assessment of what is wrong or not) is not a crime. If someone believes homosexuality is a sin, they should be able to say it. If gay people do not believe it they don;t have to listen to it and can continue being gay. Simple as that. Somebody spouting their religious beliefs does not encroach upon your freedom from religion. When Jehovahs witnesses hand out pamphlet I dont sue them for encroaching upon my freedom from their religion. I just either toss the pamphlets out or read them and dismiss them. Allowing people to say what they believe is not the same as forcing people to believe in religion. The man who made that comment in response to a question did not force anyone else to believe in what he said. He simply said it. You can agree or disagree. Your freedom from religion is still intact. Now Jennie, please stop evading my question. Would you support a suit filed by an offended white person who endured a racial comment about white people?

Who is denying you freedom from religion. This man says he believes homosexuality is a sin. He is not stopping people from being gay. No one has to believe what he says. But he should still have the right to say it. Now answer the question, its rather simple..... If there were a case of racism against a white person....an offensive comment made about a white person, would you then support a law suit against the person who made the offending comment? Please, this should not be too hard to answer. And try not to get so angry. What do you mean take my DOGma for a walk. That would be relevant if I expounded some dogma upon you. But I never did. All I said was that people who have a dogma should have the right to express it. That is in no way infringing upon your so-called right to freedom from religion, because you are free by law to not listen or care about what he says. Someone saying what they believe, whether it be something as ridiculous as "eating dill pickle chips" is wrong is not infringing upon your freedom from following his dogma. His saying it is not forcing you to follow it. It cannot stop you from eating dill pickle chips. If you don't like what he says you don't have to adhere to it, but at the same time you can also allow him the freedom to speak his mind, since it is not infringing upon your own freedom at all. What do you mean by give a shit what I think you should do? This is off base isn't it, since at no time did I ever recommend you do anything. A citation please of when I told you what I think you should do. If I had though that would be an acceptable reply if you did not like my advice. What would not be acceptable is for you to try to infringe upon my right to say what I think you should do by having me punished by law for simply speaking. Even though at no time did I ever tell you what to do, if I had it would not infringe upon your freedom to do as you choose because my saying I think you should do something is not the same as forcing you to do something. You can ignore me. Simple as that. Now, I am only asking you a simple question. If there were a white person who endured an offensive comment about white people would you support his lawsuit against the person who made that comment?

You are dancing around the question Jennie, and I think you understood my question better than you let on. You said that what this man said about gays was offensive to them, and therefore you supported the lawsuit against him. Now the question I am asking you, is not about sexuality at all. I am asking a racial question. If it is offensive to say something about gays and if these comments warrant a lawsuit in your eyes, is it the same for race related questions as opposed to sex related questions? That is, offensive comments about people of a certain race. And if so would you support a white persons suit against someone who made an offensive comment about white people. This is a wonderful little story you tell about you and the chief, but it is not relevant to the question. Just because you say this fellow did not engage in race demeaning speech does not mean that people of other races never exhibit racism against white people. And if so, since you based your support of the other lawsuit on its offensiveness, nay though it be a sex related case and not a race one, would you support a lawsuit by a white man who felt he was a victim of offensive speech against whites by another person. I am not talking about some Six Nations meeting you attended. Your personal experiences are not the sum total of what goes on in the world, Jennie.

Yeah, good campaign you are running there. Is this line going to be in your speech? Threatening to put an average guy in his place. Way to win the sane vote! I sure hope the down trodden and disenfranchised have more important issues to think about than whether or not they can toke freely. Actually alot of them probably do. Your gains will come from people who have no priorities.

If we haven't solved the problem of schoolyard bullies by then, I would not recommend the name Kimlet.

Michael Hardner you seem to have a hard time understanding when you are being addressed. Hint: This is not one of them. I am asking Jennie.

I think there is a definite connection. It is definitely the same mentality which supports hate laws which would support this suit and making a man pay 1000 dollars for responding to a question about his beliefs. And by the way, this was addressing Jennie, not you yourself. She said she agreed with this suit, unless he said that homosexuality is wrong for him. I think that is ridiculous myself. People are allowed to have moral beliefs about things and to profess them. But she says this would offend homosexuals and so I ask her, since she supports this suit, would she also support a lawsuit in the case of where an offense was made against a white person or white people.

Not very observant are you, my Dear Watson. The word "niggardly" has the word "niggar" in it, not "nigger."

He did not deny their right to exist, he said he believed it was immoral. In fact he said they are people like everyone else, but that he believes it is a sin. That's his belief. He wasn't offensive about it. But you say that saying this is offensive to people who are homosexual and therefore based on offensiveness you support the lawsuit. I have to wonder Jenny, from a racial perspective, if an offensive comment were made about a white person or white people would you hold the same position.

I disagree totally Xul. I think the law should not be involved in charging people for insults. I am not saying insults are nice, but then when you get into this business you are going to have courts crammed with everyday people who offended someone. That is ridiculous. If you do not like what someone says you have a right to ignore it and not believe in it. If that person were to commit an actual crime against you that would be different---ie Jennie's example of torture. I cited an example of someone saying he believed homosexuality is wrong, for him and for everyone. He believes it is immoral. He was not overly insulting about it. He was asked his views in an interview and he answered honestly. He did not promote violence. He was not being self-righteous, because at no point did he ever claim he was a better human being than anyone else, homosexual or not. But yet he was sued for 1000.

Darnit, Kimmy. Ok, you got me. I didn't even realize the posts were that old. Someone posted on it recently and I just assumed it was a new topic. Jeffy? :angry: You know my mom used to call me Jeppy - in public places that is. :angry:

Statute of limitations I am not aware of? Anyhow, the point is Trudeau was sort of a celebrity Prime Minister. That's the reason for his popularity.

I think you understand that an earthworm is not a common part of any menu. Hardly comparable to the bacon. Now you may say that is revolting to a muslim, but still Peter, cmon that is a bit off isnt it. If it were Earth worms on my plate you would know it was some kind of insult. The bacon was not an insult since it is a regular part of most of the prisoners diet. But all he has to do is ask for no bacon on his plate. If you made some reasonable suggestion, like clams, which I find disgusting, I would forego eating the clams. Unlike the earthworms, even though clams are equally disgusting to me, I would not consider it some kind of abuse because clams are a common food and I would understand that many of my fellows probably eat them. There was no abuse intended toward me. If that were the main course of the meal and there was not a reasonable amount of nutrition besides the clams, you would have me. But that is not the case here. Two eggs, three slices of toast, jam, ketchup, breakfast cereal, beverages. I never said he was a thug, Peter. But whiney is spot on.

Why cant I get something else in place of my cole slaw? What if a prisoner doesn't like his toast? What if a prisoner does not like the type of jam provided with the toast? Its a huge deal because Canadian courts should not even consider frivolous complaints by people who are not in a "Five Star Hotel".

Oh please Peter. No one is saying he can't be a practicing Muslim. He had a complete Halal breakfast there without the bacon. You seem to make it sound as if we think it is horrible having enlightenment in prison. What is wrong with expecting people in prison to do the same thing everyone in the free civilian world does when they don't like a certain corner of a fair-sized platter. If you don't like your cole slaw you dont eat it, or you can just say no cole slaw please. Or no tomatoes on my hamburger please.

Lol. Apparently that's all he could think about. He made a federal case out of it.

Yep, good for him. What a brave citizen standing up to a complete breakfast like that. How dare they serve better breakfasts in that prison than I eat and add three slices of bacon which he could easily refuse. Good on him. Anyone know the fellow's name. We should make a holiday in his honor.

Once again Peter, I will point out: three slices of toast, two eggs, a bowl of cereal, jam, beverages....all Halal If he wants to adhere to Muslim practices he can do so by asking to hold those three measly strips of bacon. If you were a Muslim and you were at my house and I were about to serve that meal, would you not say "Please no bacon for me."

Oh just one more thing: Who do you think sells better in Canada: Britney Spears or Dvorak?

Margrace, I think you are a nice person and all. But I have seen you post this sort of thing before, about M. Dancer I believe. This is pretty far out you know. I'd like to see you back this claim up with something. If you can't then stop flinging silly accusations like this.

Pete Best and Stuart Sutcliffe were way way better. And Coke is better than Pepsi.

No he didnt say for himself. But why should he have to. If he believes it is immoral for him and everyone else, that is not stopping gay people from being gay. They don't have to believe him. He did not incite violence. If I said nobody should eat dill pickle chips, you are right it would probably be stupid, but do you think my saying it would warrant a lawsuit? Of course not. You don't have to agree with me. It would be ridiculous to say that the dividing line is between espousing something for yourself or for others. You would be creating a great limit on free speech then. You don't have to agree with what people say if you don't like it. But they should be able to say it. If someone believes something is immoral for themselves or for everyone, they should be able to say it. Or else how would they be able to communicate it. If there were a religious group which forbid its adherents to drink alcohol, they would have to be able to communicate that they believe drinking is wrong. Drinking is perfectly legal in society and saying that drinking is bad might offend some people who drink. So what. They don't have to be adherents of this particular religious sect. Simple as that. So what if saying homosexuality is a sin is offensive to homosexuals. Offensive is not a crime. If there is no call to violence then it should not matter. And if homosexuals believe it is ok, then they should be fine with it and ignore it.

I know this is one of the older posts in the thread, but I have to reply to this one. Not going to sit around and take it anymore. Peter, this has to be one of the funniest things I have ever read on this forum. Good one. You make it sound as if the guy were being forced to clean the latrines with his tongue. Once again, I will point out the meal: two eggs, three pieces of toast, cereal, and beverages.....oh and three strips of bacon he had to refuse. Damn, I wonder how he was able to take it for so long. We're not gonna take it No we aint gonna take it.......

The whole meal was Halal except for three measly strips of bacon. Two eggs, three pieces of toast, coffee, juice, breakfast cereal. More than probably alot of us eat for breakfast anyway. So it's not as if there was not sufficient food for the Islamic diet. All he had to do was say hold the bacon. It is a ridiculous case. It doesn't matter whether a Jew would do the same. American Woman should also take the meals served in the American prisons in the case of the Jewish litigants into consideration. In this case there was more than enough to make a meal without the three measly strips of bacon. What difference does it make who is conservative or who isn't. It was a frivolous lawsuit. Courts should not have time for such pathetic gibberish. In this particular case there was a plethora of Halal nourishment. It would amount to nothing more than refusing your cole slaw with your take out order.