Fema Employment - Gays say hate crime laws pose no threat 2 speech and religious freedom- proof shows otherwise-why not admit it

Gays say hate crime laws pose no threat 2 speech and religious freedom- proof shows otherwise-why not admit it

Marriage as Hate-Speech Case Filed with US Supreme Court The Pro-Family Law Center has challenged Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and United States District Court rulings finding the terms "marriage," "natural family," and "family values" to be hate-speech. The case involves the threat of termination of employment by the City of Oakland against two of its employees who used such words on an employee bulletin board. (PRWEB) June 6, 2007 -- The Pro-Family Law Center of Southern California filed a free speech case on behalf of the City of Oakland's Good News Employee Association with the United States Supreme Court on Monday. The petition for certiori requests that the Supreme Court undo prior rulings of the Ninth Circuit and United States District Court which held that certain speech by the petitioners could be censored by the City of Oakland. (http://www.profamilylawcenter.com/_docs/46.pdf ). In United States District Court, Case No. CV-03-03542-VRW, the California federal cou The suit arose in late 2002 when the petitioners chose to create the Good News Employee Association in response to alleged Bible-bashing by ranking city officials and open access given to various other groups over the City's e-mail and bulletin board systems. When the petitioners tried to express their views through a flyer posted on an open bulletin board, they were allegedly censored. The other groups are allowed, to this day, to publish whatever they'd like on the bulletin board and on e-mail systems. According to materials provided to the United States Supreme Court, one quote from an e-mail among city employees and officials said, "I personally think the good book (Bible) needs some updating" along with other alleged attacks on Christian values. Nothing was done about this e-mail from a sitting city council member. The publication of these words was met with a direct threat of termination from employment by the City of Oakland and resulted in the filing of the lawsuit with the United States District Court. To this day, the petitioners are banned from using these words in free speech forums set up by Oakland for its employees. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/6/prweb531074.htm

Public Comments

You have to admit that if you heard 'Christians suck, being a christian is a choice, christians are going to hell, God hates christians' all your life you would support a bill against saying such things.
hate crimes are a threat to every one i suggest u reread your question
free speech does not allow you to shout "Fire" in a crowded building, we already have laws against certain types of "speech"--they're called slander, libel, and making threats against yourself and others--all of which are already illegal--we may get more, so shut up and start learning how to deal with it
Um. Non all gays say that, dearie. Hate crimes laws are unneccessary WHEN THE STANDING LAWS ARE ENFORCED. Aggrevated murder has the same penalty as a hate murder, which is Aggrevated murder.
Tell that to Matthew Shepard
Does any of this really surprise you? The only remedy for these petitioners will be when this case goes to the US Supreme Court.
I know you want to be able to bash gays publicly and this one hurts you deep inside. Just feel that sense of pride knowing that you can teach that bigotry to your kids. I agree, the 'good book' needs a LOT of updating.
You can't have it both ways. You can't deny homosexuals the right to marry and then turn around and claim that words like 'marriage', 'natural family' and 'family values' are not loaded terms. I am against any restriction of speech. But the religious right is arguing out of both sides of its mouth on this one.
Thank you for the links.....well critics, looks like something else from the Bible is coming true....don't you think? Peace be with you :)
That is hot. This is another reason for R&S, I wouldn't ever know about this without such a post. Normally I don't read LONG drawn out posts, but this one was interesting. Not sure which side you are on, but it's definately an attack on free speech and free thought. BUT, then again, understand that Y/A GOD'S pick and choose which questions and answers stay up, based on the click of a button. This is reality One day Y/A may end up before the SUPREME court Remember the COURT has ruled shouting FIRE! in a closed room is not FREE SPEECH, but using the F word or N word and being censored for it is a violation. So, Y/A rules violate free speech and free thought in a PUBLIC forum over the rules of PC. It's very simple. You can use PARENTAL controls to stop kids from coming here. Atheists Kids coming here can learn about God Hindus can learn about Muslims Muslims can learn about a different view of Jesus Even with the PC attitude Y/A is a very controversial place to be There are no dirty words or dirty thougts only judgement minds. Christians are not supposed to be judgemental. Jesus said so! MARRIAGE is a hate word. WOW! Not sure which side I take I'm going to have to look this case up and actually read the brief! I hate to say it, but in READING the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the brief, they are probably GOING TO LOSE Neither the 1st nor 14th applies under STRICT RULES So the Justices would have to be LIBERAL to even hear the case. This was NOT a CONGRESSIONAL ISSUE There was no LIFE, LIBERTY nor PERSONAL PROPERTY taken without due process They lose Strict law Sorry To prevail under the 14th, MEMBERS of that org have to be FIRED for being a member of that ORG Okland would have to GO INTO THEIR HOMES and TAKE ALL COPIES, ALL COMPUTERS with that flyer THEN it would qualify Sorry, even though I'm not a lawyer, this is a THIN case Their petitioner and HOPING the COURT will be LIBERAL It may not They may see it as I do A very WEAK stretch at those constitutioinal provisions No law was made by congress No property, life or liberty was TAKEN AWAY without due process A flyer was taken down Doesn't qualify under the 1st or 14th They should have filed under the FREEDOM OF SPEECH provision! It might have applied Even then it's weak It's a weak case Not meritorius of Supreme Court review That's my view, the COURT has a right to disagree with me If I was on the Supreme Court I'd throw it in the trash can It's a pandora's box with NO sufficient CONSTITUTIONAL merit Let's understand something a FEW STATES require you to ACKNOWLEDGE GOD to be a Mayor, or Alderman or even GOVERNOR NO ONE has taken that successfully to the Supreme Court under Article 1 Nor under article 14 States have a right If you're not a Mormon you have SEVERE problems getting along poltically in Utah That is THEIR RIGHT THEY were MORMON territory LONG before it became a state ALL the US asked is for them to give up overt POLGYMY So Utah passed a BIGOMY law and they got them in as a state But everyone implicitly KNOWS you have to be a Mormon or follow Mormon rules to own a business or be a politican in Utah. It's a STATES RIGHT ISSUE Sadly, OAKLAND and BERKELY are very very very LIBERAL areas and to see this happen is strange. States Rights are A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER Now, if MASSACHUSETTES allows same sex marriages, legally, then ALL STATES have to accept that, even if they don't allow it. That is a CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER If it is LEGAL for 50 year old man to marry a 5 year old girl in Pakistan and the US has diplomatic relations with Pakistan and that MAN and his BRIDE comes to Anaheim and wants to stay in a hotel and sleep in the same bed and that MAN wants to take naked baths with the 5 year old girl and do sexual things with her, ANAHEIM POLICE cannot arrest him, for CALIFORNIA LAW states that MARRIED PEOPLE ARE EXEMPT from STAUTORY RAPE laws. A PAKISTAN MARRAIGE is LEGAL if the US has full DIPOLMATIC relations with them and respects their institutions. This is how law works, like it or not. In Mexico a 50 year old man can marry a 14 year old girl with parents consent. He can take her to a Bed and Breakfast in Andover Maine and have SEX with her in that BED and it is LEGAL. Even though MAINE says you have to be at least 16 to get married. This is called UNIFORMED CODE It says STATES HAVE NO RIGHTS over what the US VIEWS AS RIGHT SO US LAW PREVAILS OVER STATE LAW If California allows doctors to prescribe Marihuana the US has the right to imprison the doctor, the phramacist and the person because US LAW says it is a felony to possess or allow others to posses marihuana. States rights do not apply States cannot legally make Heroin legal to use when the US says it is a crime. States CAN require a TEST of GOD and RELIGION, because there is no US law that says they can't. The US LAW says CONGRESS shall pass no law respecting religion. It doesn't say anything about New York, Minnesota, Utah or California. If the US says we accept Pakistan and Mexican marriage laws and they vaction here, you have to allow a 50 year old man to do sex things to a 5 year old wife, because it is LEGAL in PAKISTAN. That is how law works in the US