Author Topic: Rubio: Gay Agenda’s ‘Next Step’ is to Define ‘Mainstream Christianity’ as ‘Hate Speech’  (Read 1475 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,798
http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/rubio-gay-agendas-next-step-define-mainstream-christianity-hate-speech

Quote
Conservative Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said that in America today if you do not support homosexual marriage, “you are labeled a homophobe and a hater,” and that the next step in that strategy is “to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity” constitute “hate speech.”

"We are at the water's edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech,” said Senator Rubio in a May 26 interview with CBN News.

“Because today we've reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage you are labeled a homophobe and a hater,” he said, adding, “so what's the next step after that?"

"After they are done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech and that's a real and present danger,” said Rubio.

Earlier in the interview, Rubio explained the importance of the traditional family.

He is correct. They will win this as well.  **nononono*


Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
We label everyone negatively these days. Everyone engages in it, and everyone feels righteously justified in doing so.

There are no clean hands.

I wish that we could find a way, as a nation, to respect each other, be civil to one another, and live as one nation even when we don't agree with one another. You're not a homophobe simply because you're a Christian and you're not a pedophile simply because you're homosexual.

Politicians have splintered us by promoting class envy, class fear, and political distrust, and we're now living the end results of their efforts.

Sometimes, it seems like we hate each other more than we love being Americans together.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,371
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
Sometimes, it seems like we hate each other more than we love being Americans together.
The last time the U.S. citizenry loved being Americans together was 2001, right after we were attacked.

I know for a fact that, if it were to happen again, even that would not be enough to pull us together again.

The problem, of course, is that over half of this country buys into delusions, and when the truth is so soundly denied, you can have no basis for camaraderie.
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/rubio-gay-agendas-next-step-define-mainstream-christianity-hate-speech

He is correct. They will win this as well.  **nononono*

Of course that is the goal of the left........... to silence Christians by making the basics of Biblical belief 'hate speech.'

But the only way they succeed is if we let them.

I believe the time is coming........... soon................... when the cushion of respect Christians have always known in America is going to be pulled out, and the long knives will come out and try to make us go away.

It is then when we will find out who the followers of Jesus Christ really are.

And we are not the ones who have made this happen. 
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,022
  • Gender: Male
  • "...and the winning number is...not yours!
Once again, finding myself the contrarian.

First, if another 9-11 were to occur, the Democratic Left wing and MOST of the democratic voters will turn and unite...same way they did for 3-1/2 years post-attack.

Perversely, that may be the only way.  A cold hard slap in the face.

Secondly, most of the states are coming around on same-sex marriage.  And I think that's a good thing. 

And let's not forget.  Our Constitution and "Great Experiment" are less than 300 years old.  Christianity is over 2000 years old.

It ain't going anywhere.

Now, let's stop chasing squirrels and focus on Barry Soetoro.
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - David Burge (Iowahawk)

"It was only a sunny smile, and little it cost in the giving, but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living" F. Scott Fitzgerald

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,756
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
They will try, that I have no doubt. The backlash however will reap a whirlwind. Even most not particularly religious people feel that gays should be allowed to live their lives, but no one I know of says that everyone is required to agree with them.

This will break down as it always does - liberal cities v. the more conservative rural and smaller towns. It will split the country, which is what they want. It's not about dictatorship, it's about fracturing the country and creating anarchy.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 01:48:38 am by Free Vulcan »
The Republic is lost.

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,916
  • Gender: Male
Once again, finding myself the contrarian.

First, if another 9-11 were to occur, the Democratic Left wing and MOST of the democratic voters will turn and unite...same way they did for 3-1/2 years post-attack.

Perversely, that may be the only way.  A cold hard slap in the face.

Secondly, most of the states are coming around on same-sex marriage.  And I think that's a good thing. 

And let's not forget.  Our Constitution and "Great Experiment" are less than 300 years old.  Christianity is over 2000 years old.

It ain't going anywhere.

Now, let's stop chasing squirrels and focus on Barry Soetoro.

In 2008, the year Obama won California, voters also passed proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative.  The courts later overturned prop 8 as unconstitutional saying in effect to the people, you have no say in the matter.

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,386
  • Gender: Male
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
In 2008, the year Obama won California, voters also passed proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative.  The courts later overturned prop 8 as unconstitutional saying in effect to the people, you have no say in the matter.
That is factually not accurate.

Actually the Court ruling held the voters cannot enact an unconstitutional measure by majority, since the measure violated the equal protection clause.  IOW cannot discriminate among classes of people.

 
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
That is factually not accurate.

Actually the Court ruling held the voters cannot enact an unconstitutional measure by majority, since the measure violated the equal protection clause.  IOW cannot discriminate among classes of people.

That is the heart and soul of a Constitutional Republic.

The purpose of a Republican form of government is to control the majority, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect the individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of the minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.

Proposition 8 was an example of Direct Democracy, which is the antithesis of conservatism since direct Democracy is in effect Communism.

http://www.directdemocracy4u.org/DDDEN/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54:introduction-to-direct-democracy-communist-party&catid=34:programmes&Itemid=27

You cannot, by popular vote, enact unconstitutional laws.

The Court was right.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,916
  • Gender: Male
In California, a ballot proposition is a proposed law submitted to the electorate for approval in a direct vote (or plebiscite). A ballot initiative is an example of how California does some of its laws.

Proposition 8 was a ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in 2008 by the people. In 2000, a similar law, proposition 22 was passed by the people and was also stuck down, this time by the California Supreme Court. That's twice the people voted to protect the centuries-old definition of traditional marriage and were yet rebuffed by their rulers.

Both these initiatives are also examples of how it's okay with some people here that a few individuals in black robes can tell the pions what's best for them.

It's also interesting to note that in States and in some European countries that vote for gay-marriage (recent example Ireland), that's considered okay. But when the people vote for traditional marriage the religious rights of the majority are never considered okay or worthy of protection.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
In California, a ballot proposition is a proposed law submitted to the electorate for approval in a direct vote (or plebiscite). A ballot initiative is an example of how California does some of its laws.

In the United States, the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, whatever any State may try to do notwithstanding.

Quote
Proposition 8 was a ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in 2008 by the people. In 2000, a similar law, proposition 22 was passed by the people and was also stuck down, this time by the California Supreme Court. That's twice the people voted to protect the centuries-old definition of traditional marriage and were yet rebuffed by their rulers.

In the United States, the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, whatever any State may try to do notwithstanding.

Quote
Both these initiatives are also examples of how it's okay with some people here that a few individuals in black robes can tell the pions what's best for them.

The U.S. Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land, created the Judiciary and tasked them with settling disputes between the people and their government. In every case, there's a side that wins and one that loses with the losing side accusing the Court of engaging in activism. That was the case with Prop 8 as it was with Burwell vs Hobby Lobby.

Quote
It's also interesting to note that in States and in some European countries that vote for gay-marriage (recent example Ireland), that's considered okay. But when the people vote for traditional marriage the religious rights of the majority are never considered okay or worthy of protection.

You can vote to protect rights or strike down laws that are deemed unconstitutional, but not to enact unconstitutional laws. California can vote to strike down all laws restricting gun ownership, but no number of people can vote to make gun ownership illegal in California, because that would be unconstitutional and in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.

The purpose of a Constitutional Republic is to control the majority and deny them the power to violate the God-given and Constitutionally-protected rights of the individual. In doing so, the rights of the minorities are protected and by extent, the rights of all the people at large.

Prop 8 and similar measures are direct democracy and direct democracy is Communism, pure and simple and we all have the tendency to embrace Communism when it suits our purposes and supports our causes.

In 1788, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison expressed his concerns over the violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

Thank God that we still have remnants of a Constitution to protect us from such actions.

« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 10:43:36 am by Luis Gonzalez »
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,022
  • Gender: Male
  • "...and the winning number is...not yours!
Luis, please refrain from finding it necessary to separate every sentence/paragraph to rebut.

It makes it IMPOSSIBLE to respond to you when the poster's statement to which you are debating/rebutting are not present.

And despite your assurance that the Supreme Court is the Law of the Land.....have you ever tried to purchase a firearm in Maryland?

In the District of Columbia?

Supreme Court my ass.
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - David Burge (Iowahawk)

"It was only a sunny smile, and little it cost in the giving, but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living" F. Scott Fitzgerald

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
Once again, finding myself the contrarian.

First, if another 9-11 were to occur, the Democratic Left wing and MOST of the democratic voters will turn and unite...same way they did for 3-1/2 years post-attack.

Perversely, that may be the only way.  A cold hard slap in the face.

Secondly, most of the states are coming around on same-sex marriage.  And I think that's a good thing. 

And let's not forget.  Our Constitution and "Great Experiment" are less than 300 years old.  Christianity is over 2000 years old.

It ain't going anywhere.

Now, let's stop chasing squirrels and focus on Barry Soetoro.

I'm going to out-contrary the contrarian here.

Of course, Christianity is not going anywhere. The Church tends to grow stronger in areas where there is persecution.

It just goes underground.

But it is not a 'squirrel' that there is an overt effort by the left to silence people who hold to fundamental Christian beliefs (and Barry Soetoro is very much a part of that effort).

When Rubio calls the effort to silence the free speech of Christians a 'clear and present danger,' he is absolutely correct.

Without being any form of alarmist, it is prudent to be aware of what they are trying to do to remove any opposition to the leftist agenda by shutting us up.

Not a squirrel.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,916
  • Gender: Male
Luis, please refrain from finding it necessary to separate every sentence/paragraph to rebut.

It makes it IMPOSSIBLE to respond to you when the poster's statement to which you are debating/rebutting are not present.

And despite your assurance that the Supreme Court is the Law of the Land.....have you ever tried to purchase a firearm in Maryland?

In the District of Columbia?

Supreme Court my ass.

Not to mention the Dred Scott decision or Korematsu v United States.

The Supreme Court has no greater insight or wisdom on these matters then do the people –  especially as it relates to cultural issues.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Luis, please refrain from finding it necessary to separate every sentence/paragraph to rebut.

It makes it IMPOSSIBLE to respond to you when the poster's statement to which you are debating/rebutting are not present.

And despite your assurance that the Supreme Court is the Law of the Land.....have you ever tried to purchase a firearm in Maryland?

In the District of Columbia?

Supreme Court my ass.

How I format my responses is a matter of personal choice.

Quote
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."[5]

Yes... the Supreme Court.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Not to mention the Dred Scott decision or Korematsu v United States.

The Supreme Court has no greater insight or wisdom on these matters then do the people –  especially as it relates to cultural issues.

No one ever said that the Supreme Court is infallible, just that they are the people charged by the Constitution with making the final decision and settling the dispute. In every one of their decisions, there's one party that believes them wrong.

I guess you'd rather live under mob rule and anarchy in a country where what the Constitution means is decided by a majority vote.

That would not be this country.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 01:06:16 pm by Luis Gonzalez »
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Quote
NBC News, Jan 20, 2015 - A federal appeals court has set oral arguments over the constitutionality of a Maryland law banning 45 assault weapons and gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia scheduled arguments in the matter for March 24.

Maryland's gun laws, enacted as a reaction to the Sandy Hook shooting, are also being challenged and working their way through the Courts. I imagine that once they reach the SCOTUS, District of Columbia v. Heller will be instrumental in the Court's decision.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 01:13:02 pm by Luis Gonzalez »
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,022
  • Gender: Male
  • "...and the winning number is...not yours!
How I format my responses is a matter of personal choice.

Yes... the Supreme Court.

Of course it is, my friend.  I am not trying to butt heads with you.  I'm your biggest fan.

But it's impossible to have a coherent conversation with you when context is AWOL in some other reply.
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - David Burge (Iowahawk)

"It was only a sunny smile, and little it cost in the giving, but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living" F. Scott Fitzgerald

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,371
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
That is factually not accurate.

Actually the Court ruling held the voters cannot enact an unconstitutional measure by majority, since the measure violated the equal protection clause.  IOW cannot discriminate among classes of people.
All persons are free to marry a person of the opposite sex, for whatever reason, under that proposition. How does that violate the equal protection clause?
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,386
  • Gender: Male
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
All persons are free to marry a person of the opposite sex, for whatever reason, under that proposition. How does that violate the equal protection clause?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

You'll just need to study the entire history of rulings, regarding "equal protection."

My family taught me that my freedom extended until it conflicted with somebody else's freedom. A lesbian couple have lived down the street from my wife and I for over 30 years.

Over that period, I have had my work cut out for me, worrying about my marriage, so I have no time, expertise or frankly, concern about their marriage. Live and let live.

« Last Edit: May 29, 2015, 05:01:29 pm by truth_seeker »
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
All persons are free to marry a person of the opposite sex, for whatever reason, under that proposition. How does that violate the equal protection clause?

Did you seriously just ask that question?

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx