All rights infringe on other rights. You're getting dismissing the distinction between "no infringement" and "legitimate infringment". There are two issues here. One: Was the assurance that the government gave religious groups (that their religious liberties wouldn't be affected by the change), honoured. Answer: No. TwoWas not honouring the assurance the right thing to do? You're arguing the second question exclusively. Answering Yes to the second question doesn't change the answer to the first. I was merely pointing out that the first question was the reason some people were suspicious of the government on some issues.
Perhaps I was mistaken about the implications of your statements. I'll leave the judgement of that to other readers.
You seem quite convinced that those men are rooting their beliefs in hatred. I don't know those men personally so I can't comment on their emotions, and I don't know how to respond to you except to tell you that if you're generalizing that belief to me or to self-professed Christians that I know who believe that homosexual behaviour is immoral then you are wrong. I know can't say anything to convince you otherwise if you won't believe my assurance that I don't hate gay people. But there it is.
One thing that might shed some light is to give a comparison. I believe that homosexual behaviour is immoral. I also believe that having sexual relations with anyone except your spouse (whether pre-marital or otherwise) is immoral. I don't hate people who have sex outside of marriage. Neither do I hate gays. My feelings are the same to both groups of people. I believe they're making an immoral choice. This doesn't mean I hate them because everyone (including me obviously) has sinned. That's all I can say to that point.
I do believe that it was wrong to penalize Chris Kempler and I believe that you should agree. You didn't say that Dr. Kempler should be arrested, but you seem to think it's perfectly reasonable to bar him from teaching because of views he expressed outside the school system. Had he been preaching his views in the classroom that would have been different. But that's not what happened.
You're also continuing in the personal attacks. If your response to this continues in the same vein, I won't participate anymore. So if you want to "win" by having the last word, you know what to do.
It did surprise me that he said they didn't have limits. He was quite insistent though. They probably do have limits.
The problem is that the ISP's seem to be delibertately vague on the subject. They don't exactly want to put the limits on their service front and centre.
I didn't want the business package because the business package offered many things that I didn't want or need such as a static IP which cost money. The business package offered lots of bells and whistles, not just increased traffic. Extra traffic plus those bells and whistles would have been very expensive. It actually would have been cheaper to simply get two home packages and double my cost & traffic. (While the home package didn't have an explicit traffic limit, I did ask them what my unofficial maximum was).
I just lowered my usage because getting two home packages wasn't something they offered. (I'd have to have two houses for that). After I lowered my usage they left me alone.
They were very friendly. I just wish they offered a product even more to my liking.
Shaw's probably just sucking. They send you a notice when you go over your undefined "limit". I got a fairly friendly warning that I had to bring my usage down. They were quite friendly and offered a couple of helpful suggestions on how to do that. Their service can be extremely crappy though. They do take advantage of the fact that for high speed in BC you're limited to either Telus or Shaw.
The fact that they claim to have limits is really irritating though. These limits aren't defined anywhere, they're just called "excessive usage". I'd rather pay by the GB. When I them what the cost for extra transfer once I'd gone into their illdefined "excessive" range, he said they didn't have a cost scale and they'd just have to cut me off or turn it into a business line.
So I don't have a lot of sympathy for shaw. I was willing to pay to download & upload more, but they wouldn't do it. Incidentally a telus tech support guy claimed that Telus doesn't even track transfer volumes.
The reason I dimissed you as a troll, (although your post would more accurately be described as flamebait), is that rather than discuss the issue calmly you immediately launched a personal attack. Using your first sentence to call someone a "backwards ass nutjob" doesn't exactly signal you as someone with whom you can have a reasonable discussion.
You also didn't address my point. I was simply saying that suspicion of government assurances of nop infringement was reasonable if previous assurances had been quickly forgotten. It may have been quite reasonable to infringe on religious freedoms, but that doesn't change the fact that people will trust future assurances less. Whether breaking the assurance was legitimate, reasonable or just is completely beside the point.
And while you did not explicitely state that Christians hate non-Christians and want coerce others to become Christians your post most certainly did imply exactly that.
You can choose to hate non-Christians, and while they could choose to be Christian, you have no right to attempt to coerce them into it.
In any discussion you're responsible for the implications of your statements.
I do not hate non-Christians nor do I wish to force them to become Christians. You implied that I did. You are wrong.
I am also suspicious of your insistance that you agree with the statement "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it".
Chris Kempler's public statements are clearly objectionable to you. I take it you disagree strongly with what he said. That is your right and good for you for expressing your disagreement. I failed to notice the part of your post where you defended his right to make those statements that you disagreed with. Remember that those statements were made in a public forum and were never mentioned in his school. Not in the classroom and not in the staff room. Only in the editorial pages.
For the record, Chris Kempler discriminated against nobody. He simply expressed his disaproval of the behaviour of a group of people. Why are you not defending his right to express that disapproval. If someone expressed their disaproval of people of helping the homeless, I'd think he was a jerk, but I would defend his right to say that.
The print shop guy did descriminate. As I mentioned in my post he descriminated on the basis of the material he was asked to publish. (Not on the basis of the sexual orientation of his customers). The link I provided has this quote from the Ontario Divisional Court saying that Mr. Brockie held
"a sincere religious belief that homosexual conduct is sinful and, in furtherance of that belief, he must not assist in the dissemination of information intended to spread the acceptance of a gay or lesbian ('homosexual') lifestyle. Mr. Brockie draws a distinction between acting for customers who are homosexual and acting in furtherance of a homosexual lifestyle."
You may disagree with his beliefs and many people do, but your agreement or disagreement with him isn't the point.
Finally, I'm not trying to argue that there aren't people calling themselves Christians who are hypocritical or hurtful. I'm not so foolish as to try and defend everything anyone calling themselves a Christian says. But I do try to understand where everyone is coming from.
I don't see why we have to answer for Bryan Adams. He may be Canadian, he may write and sing his own music, but according to the CRTC which decides how much scary foreign content we can listen to, Bryan Adams' music is not Canadian
well I think he may have been referring to the adscam affair (Currently being investigated by the Gomery whose bad attempt at a publication ban was covered on Slashdot.
That would be a badly managed project that was supposed to buy off seperatists (two birds with one stones), but apparently spent most of it's time laundering tax money back into the Liberal party. Or so says the latest testimony at the inquiry.
I'm not an expert in US tax law, but wouldn't that still mean that the Google people couldn't bypass taxes by paying themselves $1. The company would pay less tax, but they still would need to find a way to get money out and into their wallets without it "counting".
They don't pay the tax on the $100K they don't receive, but they also don't get the 100K. If you reduced my income to zero, my tax bill would go to zero, but I wouldn't say I'd come out "ahead".
As far as I know, there are only a few ways you can get money out of a company you own and into your pocket.
1) Income (they're getting $1).
2) Profit to shareholderes. (Taxed)
3) Sell your stock (Taxed and not in infinite supply)
4) Have the company give you a lot of free stuff like a private jet. (Available to owners in either case). You're also limitied in what sort of free stuff you can give out. They can loan them a car, (but would that qualify as a taxable benefit), but they can't give them a briefcase full of cash.
As I said, I'm not an expert, but I still don't see how this gets them money without paying tax as was suggested.
It's fairly obvious that Darby doesn't agree with "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it".
He also seems to be labouring under the delusion that Christians hate non-Christians and want to coerce them into becoming Christians. (Or at least he thinks I do). Silly rabbit...
Of course the two events I brought up aren't directly related in law. I don't believe I ever claimed that they were. I brought them up as examples of events that cause some people to be suspicious when given assurances that their religious liberties would not be curtailed. They're obviously quite different. The fact that they're unrelated might well convince some people that they were not isolated events and were in fact examples of a wider trend.
You are quite correct that the print shop case was based on the Ontario Human Rights Act and not the Charter. I shouldn't have glossed over that information. Again, my point was not to argue at this time that the decision was unlawful or even unjust, I'm simply trying to point out how many people just don't trust assurances of religious liberty. It isn't because they're paranoid nutjobs. The Ontario Human Rights Act and the Charter are quite distinct legally, but the issue is the same both in that section of the OHRA and the judicially inserted section of the Charter. As a result, it just doesn't wash with many people if you try and say "but that was a totally different law". They see that their concerns about religious freedom were poo-pood, and then it turns out that their concerns were at least partly justified.
It's also of concern that the Charter specifically guarantees freedom of conscience and religion and that at the moment at least all law in Canada is subject to the Charter including the Ontario Human Rights Act. In theory at least the OHRA can say whatever it likes and if the Charter disagrees, the Charter trumps.
Again, I am well aware that Professional Associations can set their own standards. However these standards are subject to the Charter. This was deemed a legitimate infringement of religious freedom by the courts and that is what makes people suspicious when they are assured that their religious freedoms will not be infringed. It's not as if professional associations can enforce any behaviour they want. The BC Medical Association cannot require that all doctors refrain from expressing pro-life views. They simply require that they provide information about abortion services to patients when they're working. They're punished for writing pro-life pieces in the newspaper.
You seem to be stuck on defending the decisions that the courts came to. That was not the subject I was arguing. I'm simply suggesting that the lack of trust in government assurances has some basis in reality.
I have a good knowledge of Canadian law, government and it's roots in English Common law and French Civil law in Quebec. I see no reason to descend to insults. I'm not advocating mob rule or the end of the rule of law. Court rulings are not as simple as Courts ruling on the basis of laws enacted by the legislature. How do you interpret the Charter? On the strict literal interpretation of the words? By basing your decisions on the framers intentions? Or by interpreting the charter on the basis of evolving standards in society? Depending on your answer court decisions will be hugely different? (We don't use the first option or the second option in Canada, although both are legitimate ways of doing it based on our legal history).
The tyranny of the majority is a concern, but if you think about it how does our constitution protect us from it? The constitution was created by the majority. It can be changed to say absolutely anything by the majority. Doesn't the constitution just guarantee that laws aren't enacted in haste that compromise the principles that the majority agrees on?
Certainly there a limits to all our rights. There's the old saying that my right to express myself by waving my arms ends at the end of your nose. There's no such thing as an unlimited right because all rights are limited by the corresponding rights of others.
I don't believe that one should "be scummy at" people. I take Christ's command to love very seriously. Loving does not mean that you can't expess an opinion about right and wrong or that you need to support things you disagree with.
I'm not saying everything about these cases is white lillies. For all I know the man in Toronto was a total jerk. Maybe he was rude. I don't know. My point is only that specific assurances were made that religious liberty would not be infringed, and shortly thereafter it was. Maybe it was a just infringement. (I don't think so, but maybe it was). The point is that assurances were made that they would not be infringed and they were.
So that's why people are suspicious of assurances like that.
true, but the google people aren't in a position to funnel money to themselves by other means instead of taking a salary.
Assuming the original tax statement in the story is correct, (which it seems not to be, but let's ignore that), they don't have to pay tax on capital gains on stock they sell. Google may be a cool company, but they can't arbitrarily set their stock sale price. (The various buyers in the stock market do that). So if they accept $1 salaries, they can sell stock. If they accept $1Million salaries they can sell stock. In both cases they can have google buy a jet. Nothing's changed.
Now they could funnel money to themselves by paying shareholders a dividend, but that's a totally different thing that capital gains from stock sales. Now I don't know everything about US tax law, (I'm Canadian), but I do believe that you have to pay taxes on dividends.
you really don't understand the concept of Jihad as understood by wahabi's do you?
It's not that *every* Muslim wants to kill all the non-Muslims. They don't. But some do. And the lovely thing about technology is it makes it easier for a few people to create a *lot* of death. The wahabi's don't want to kill you because you did something to piss them off. They're pissed off and want to kill you because you're not a wahabi Muslim. They kill Muslims they don't agree with too.
bunch of screeching Christians like to pretend that they did
That might be because the last time the government assured us that a new law wouldn't make someone compromise their religious principles that *promise* lasted only a couple of years.
If you want the details, it was when the government, (or was it just our unelected supreme court decided to add "Sexual Orientation" to the list of things you were not allowed to descriminate on the basis of that are listed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Well actually it was our unelected Supreme Court that decided to do this even though the people who'd written the Charter only a few years before had considered putting "Sexual Orientation" in the list and decided against it, but let's not get sidetracked).
This was all fine and good, but some people had concerns that their religious convictions against homosexual lifestyles would be made illegal. (For instance a religious school might get shut down for refusing to hire a man in a sexual relationship with another man). The architects of our new world order assured us this was merely our stupid redneck paranoia getting the best of us and that we shouldn't worry, because our betters would make sure that religious freedom was protected.
Some time later, a religious man in Toronto who owned a printing company was approached by an activist group wanting him to print their letter head, business cards etc. The man refused because he felt it violated his religious conscience to use his resources to aid an organization that promoted ideas contrary to his beliefs. Rather than go to another printer muttering something about ignorant dumbasses, (as some people might do if their business was refused), the group decided to make a human rights complaint. (Human rights commissions are not courts of law incidentally, but their decisions have the force of law). The man was fined $5000 and was told that he was not allowed to refuse orders like that.
A couple of other factors are interesting. This was in Toronto where there are many printers available, many of whom would have loved the business. It's not as if this action took away anyone's ability to actually get materials printed. Also, no one ever contested that the man did in fact serve gay customers and there was no suggestion that the man wouldn't serve people who were gay, merely that he wouldn't print materials promoting a homosexual lifestyle.
Now I know nothing about the situation other than what I've read, but I do have a personal connection to the next case. (Albeit a distant one).
A Christian man by the name of Chris Kempling teaches school in British Columbia. He wrote a letter to a local newspaper. (In fact he wrote one freelance column and six letters to the editor between 1997 and 2000). Dr. Kempler's views are so toxic that he addressed the UN on March 4th 2005 on the subject of Human Rights. The subject of of Dr. Kempler's letters were factual STD & promiscuity rates, that many religions consider homosexuality to be immoral, that it may be caused by negative psycho-social influences, and that it was nothing to be applauded. He did not express these views in the classroom, or in the staff room, but only in the editorial pages of the local newspaper. In 2002 he was suspended by the BC College of teachers. The suspension was upheld by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in last year.
My tenuous connection to this case is that a co-worker and friend of mine knows him personally and his father helped Dr. Kempler in his defence. (Unsuccesfully). The accounts I have heard is that Dr. Kempler is reasonable and does not descend to nasty behaviour. (Most certainly not a "redneck").
The Liberals, under Chretiens rule, kept the country together
Oh please... You really shouldn't mention the shear unadulterated incompetence that Chretien showed on the Quebec file if you're trying to say the Liberals have proven themselves. That was among the most pathetic behaviour I have ever seen or heard of in Canadian history. The man came within a whisker of losing that referendum and Parizeau was perfectly right when he said the separatists lost because of money and the ethnic vote. It was a stupid thing for Parizeau to say but it was true. Chretien failed utterly in convincing Francophones to reject seperatism.
Flipping off Bush was stupid. Exactly what do we gain by "flipping off" the leader of another country? Particularly our largest trading partner? You can disagree without pissing off people you might need a favour from, but Chretien was incapable of that. That's small town bully behaviour, not global statesman behaviour. Can you see Lester B. Person "flipping off" the US President? No? Why not? Because he's a statesman.
Frankly your post says a lot about our country... You don't care what kind of guy Chretien is or if he's shovelling money into his friends pockets. You like him anyway. That's a sad comment on your expectations.
Now that's insightful. I don't have any mod points, unfortunately, and you posted as anonymous so you're starting at zero.:( Maybe someone will notice this and mod you up before I get downed for abusing my +2.
At this point I would be begining to suspect I'm being trolled but for the fact that there aren't any trolls who'd be this good on slashdot.
I'm not sure you've grasped that there are two different lines of discussion in this thread. The first is free speech and the second is Christian beliefs about homosexual lifestyles. I'm engaging in the second in order to defend myself. It has no bearing on my belief in free speech. If some guy was writing letters to the editor saying that Left Handed writing was harmful to society and should be condemned I would defend his right to say so without sanction. That is completely separate from whether or not I agree with him. I do not know if I agree with everything Mr. Kempler believes about gays & lesbians but I defend his right to express his opinions (which do not call for violence) in a public forum. My agreement with him and my belief in his right to speak are completely separate. Could you please stop blurring the two together? It's a little disingenuous of you
This is especially relevant when I consider your statement that opposition to homosexuality is merely thinly disguised hatred. I do not support hatred. As a Christian I'm called to love my enemies. So I am not defending hatred. BUT ! Hatred should not be against the law. If we say "that idea is motivated by hate, if you share it we'll punish you", is a very dangerous road to start down as a society. We are an open society predicated on the free exchange of ideas. Don't change that.
Your appeal to authority as a means of argument, (by referencing our anti-free speech hate crime laws), does not constitute a valid argument. I'm well aware that free speech is unjustly legally restricted in Canada. It is an unjust law!
The rest of your post is all about arguing that I'm wrong in my beliefs and that homosexuality is okay. Interesting, but not relevant to Free Speech issue. And I don't distance myself on the sermon on the mount. I say that it's part of Jesus' teaching, and that he said a few other things as well. The biggest problem with your understanding of Christ's message is your apparent belief that tolerance & love are the same thing. As for your bubble -gum interpretation of Christianity. I suggest you actually read the bible before you comment. Premarital sex is specifically forbidden in the New Testament, as is homosexual sex. And Paul doesn't say that people get into heaven on the basis of their behaviour in life. (Not that getting into heaven is even the point of being a Christian, but that's really off topic)
You still seem to be confusing the right to free speech with "being correct" or "being tolerant". Incidentally there are two
freedoms at issue here. Free Speech & religious freedom. While they are linked they are not the same thing. But to pick
apart your points.
You could believe that the earth was flat, but that would not make it so.
True. And also irrelevant. True or False is irrelevant when granting free speech. Your opinion as to the truth of my
statements is not relevant. You are not required to believe what I believe or even understand what I believe. You are
simply required grant free speech to every point of view, not simply your own.
It is one thing to condemn behaviour that was deliberately chosen. It is quite another to condemn characteristics that
were decided at the moment of conception.
Also irrelevant to the question of free speech. You don't seem to differentiate between characteristics, tendencies or
actions and the people themselves. I believe that people are more than these things. People are born with many
characteristics/tendencies/desires/orientations/wh atever. Some are good. Some aren't. I critique a person's actions or
decisions to act on those desires (inborne or otherwise) that are bad. If using your left hand to write was immoral then
left handed people would be at a disadvantage. Just as some people are born with natural advantages (great composers) others
are born with handicaps. But I hesitate to even discuss this in this thread because it muddies the water. The content of a
man's opinions are irrelevant when considering the right to free speech. That's the whole point.
Homosexual lifestyles? Do you also speak of heterosexual lifestyles? I thought not...
Well then you thought wrong. Homesexual lifestyles would be ones that involve sex between people of the same gender. I
used the plural because there because not all homosexuals live identical lifestyles. Similarly there are multiple
heterosexual lifestyles. Monogamous ones, philandering ones, etc. I fail to understand why you seem be offended by the
phrase "homosexual lifestyle". The term seems fairly self-explanatory.
Personally, I find the way that you constantly juxtapose homosexuality and adultery together to be more than a little
intellectually dishonest.
Well I can understand why you don't like the comparison because it's not exactly a complimentary one. But it's not
intellectually dishonest. They're obviously different in some ways, but similar in others. Both are sexual sins condemned
in the Bible. Both are consensual acts. Both were subject to death by stoning in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. I also often
compare homosexual sex to pre-marital sex. Both are considered acceptable by our culture and both are considered sins by
Christians. It's also a useful comparison because it's easier for heterosexuals to relate to the temptations of premarital
sex than it is for them to understand the difficulty Christian homosexuals have in rejecting their sexual desires. But I
used adultery in this case to starting a side issue over the acceptability of pre-marital sex. The issue isn't the kind of sex. It's that any sex outside a monogamous marriage is wrong.
Nobody is entitled to a job in public service you know.
Of course not. Public service jobs are given out on the basis of ability. But they're not (supposed) to be handed out on the basis of a litmus test for acceptable
politics and religious beliefs. (Or at least they're not if you believe in the basic rights of the charter). Of course
we're not allowed to discriminate in violation of the charter. But having an opinion & expressing that opinion is not
violating the charter as that is constitutionally protected speech. Discrimination would be making homosexuals go to the
back of the line. Not expressing your views in a public forum outside of work.
If we do not discriminate against people from groups who are different from us, there would be no need for such moralizing on why we are better than they are. Being gay is not a choice, it is no longer a crime, and it is none of anyone else's business.
That's not actually the point I'm discussing. I'm not suggesting (and I don't believe Mr. Kempler was either) that homosexuals themselves were evil, bad, criminals or anything else. But I do believe that homosexual behaviour is harmful in and of itself. (To the person themselves as well as to the rest of society). This is what is meant by "loving the sinner and hating the sin" as you phrased it. Some use "love" to mean acceptance without criticism or accountability. This is not love. Would a parent be showing love to their child if they'd didn't correct their self-destructive or wrong behaviour? What sort of friend is it that "loves" without holding their friend accountable for wrong actions? Love does not mean that I tell someone how wonderful they are just the way they are. You may not see this as possible, but I know that it is. I do it every day. Sometimes it's harder than other times. With homosexuals I find it quite easy. With Islamist terrorist I find it a lot harder.
Quoting the beatitudes is fine, but I it's a little dishonest to suggest that that represents all of Christ's teaching. The story of Jesus' encounter with the woman caught in adultery gives us a much better understanding of how would have addressed our situation with homosexuals. Both adultery & homosexual activity are considered to be similar sexual sins and both were punishable by death in Jesus' culture. He shows compassion and forgives her sin but at the same time he also tells her to "sin no more". At no point does Jesus say that she's alright just the way she is. He approaches her as he approaches all of us, (as we are) and then tells us to change our ways. I believe in doing the same when discussing homosexual lifestyles or adulterous ones. This is what I demand the right to say and what you're talking about punishing me for.
Comparing political speech to religious speech is not an apples to oranges scenarios. Both are part of the fundamental freedoms protected by the charter. Your statement that "such people ought not work in the public sector" is disturbing. You're talking about excluding anyone with religiously based values from participating in public life. This is very very wrong. (Not to mention a gross violation of charter rights if it was implemented). You might also consider that Abraham Lincoln & William Wilberforce would have been excluded from the public sector by your logic. (Wilberforce was the driving force behind the abolition of the international slave trade in the 18th Century and he was explicity motivated by his Evangelical Christian beliefs and he used Christian morality to argue his case in parliament).
You are right that I ignored your "replace 'homosexual' with 'black'" question. I ignored it because it was confusing the point by blurring the distinction between criticism of persons and criticism of lifestyle. Both Kempler and I are critical of the actions of homosexuals, not the people themselves. An appropriate comparison would be a white person saying the same things (in a public forum) that Bill Cosby did when he caused that controversy a while back by criticising the actions of the black community in the US.
But what if someone said something about the people rather than about lifestyles? (I will say again that this is NOT was Kempler said, nor is what I'm Saying with regards to homosexuals). Perhaps a teacher wrote a public letter suggesting that "
You keep confusing two points. The first being the correct idea that all people should have equal rights (including gays or any other minority) and the false idea that those rights include the right to silence criticism.
If 100% of the heterosexual population believed that homosexuality was immoral and a sin, we would still be obliged to extend the same rights and privileges to gays and lesbians that are afforded to everyone else.
Of course. But you seem to want to go a step farther and remove the right of those people to say they believe homosexual activity to be immoral and a sin. That is despicable.
Although I will grant that you found a mistake in my argument. You correctly said that teachers were not in the classroom to indoctrinate political views. I stand corrected. What I meant to say was that you might as well say a teacher should not express a political view outside the classroom. Because that's what you're saying essentially. You're saying that a person's free speech in a public forum should be subject to government sanction.
And yes, I'd say that suggests that you don't believe you should be out defending his right to speak, since you believe it should be lawful to sanction him when he does.
And I'm perfectly aware of section 15. "You hurt my feelings is not a reasonable limit".
Call me when you're interested in liberty and not just "hooray for my side".
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I was mistaken about the implications of your statements. I'll leave the judgement of that to other readers.
You seem quite convinced that those men are rooting their beliefs in hatred. I don't know those men personally so I can't comment on their emotions, and I don't know how to respond to you except to tell you that if you're generalizing that belief to me or to self-professed Christians that I know who believe that homosexual behaviour is immoral then you are wrong. I know can't say anything to convince you otherwise if you won't believe my assurance that I don't hate gay people. But there it is.
One thing that might shed some light is to give a comparison. I believe that homosexual behaviour is immoral. I also believe that having sexual relations with anyone except your spouse (whether pre-marital or otherwise) is immoral. I don't hate people who have sex outside of marriage. Neither do I hate gays. My feelings are the same to both groups of people. I believe they're making an immoral choice. This doesn't mean I hate them because everyone (including me obviously) has sinned. That's all I can say to that point.
I do believe that it was wrong to penalize Chris Kempler and I believe that you should agree. You didn't say that Dr. Kempler should be arrested, but you seem to think it's perfectly reasonable to bar him from teaching because of views he expressed outside the school system. Had he been preaching his views in the classroom that would have been different. But that's not what happened.
You're also continuing in the personal attacks. If your response to this continues in the same vein, I won't participate anymore. So if you want to "win" by having the last word, you know what to do.
The problem is that the ISP's seem to be delibertately vague on the subject. They don't exactly want to put the limits on their service front and centre.
when I said their service could be crappy I meant the their uptime or the speed. Their customer service is just fine.
I just lowered my usage because getting two home packages wasn't something they offered. (I'd have to have two houses for that). After I lowered my usage they left me alone.
They were very friendly. I just wish they offered a product even more to my liking.
The fact that they claim to have limits is really irritating though. These limits aren't defined anywhere, they're just called "excessive usage". I'd rather pay by the GB. When I them what the cost for extra transfer once I'd gone into their illdefined "excessive" range, he said they didn't have a cost scale and they'd just have to cut me off or turn it into a business line.
So I don't have a lot of sympathy for shaw. I was willing to pay to download & upload more, but they wouldn't do it. Incidentally a telus tech support guy claimed that Telus doesn't even track transfer volumes.
You also didn't address my point. I was simply saying that suspicion of government assurances of nop infringement was reasonable if previous assurances had been quickly forgotten. It may have been quite reasonable to infringe on religious freedoms, but that doesn't change the fact that people will trust future assurances less. Whether breaking the assurance was legitimate, reasonable or just is completely beside the point.
And while you did not explicitely state that Christians hate non-Christians and want coerce others to become Christians your post most certainly did imply exactly that.
In any discussion you're responsible for the implications of your statements.I do not hate non-Christians nor do I wish to force them to become Christians. You implied that I did. You are wrong.
I am also suspicious of your insistance that you agree with the statement "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it".
Chris Kempler's public statements are clearly objectionable to you. I take it you disagree strongly with what he said. That is your right and good for you for expressing your disagreement. I failed to notice the part of your post where you defended his right to make those statements that you disagreed with. Remember that those statements were made in a public forum and were never mentioned in his school. Not in the classroom and not in the staff room. Only in the editorial pages.
For the record, Chris Kempler discriminated against nobody. He simply expressed his disaproval of the behaviour of a group of people. Why are you not defending his right to express that disapproval. If someone expressed their disaproval of people of helping the homeless, I'd think he was a jerk, but I would defend his right to say that.
The print shop guy did descriminate. As I mentioned in my post he descriminated on the basis of the material he was asked to publish. (Not on the basis of the sexual orientation of his customers). The link I provided has this quote from the Ontario Divisional Court saying that Mr. Brockie held
You may disagree with his beliefs and many people do, but your agreement or disagreement with him isn't the point.
Finally, I'm not trying to argue that there aren't people calling themselves Christians who are hypocritical or hurtful. I'm not so foolish as to try and defend everything anyone calling themselves a Christian says. But I do try to understand where everyone is coming from.
I don't see why we have to answer for Bryan Adams. He may be Canadian, he may write and sing his own music, but according to the CRTC which decides how much scary foreign content we can listen to, Bryan Adams' music is not Canadian
That would be a badly managed project that was supposed to buy off seperatists (two birds with one stones), but apparently spent most of it's time laundering tax money back into the Liberal party. Or so says the latest testimony at the inquiry.
They don't pay the tax on the $100K they don't receive, but they also don't get the 100K. If you reduced my income to zero, my tax bill would go to zero, but I wouldn't say I'd come out "ahead".
As far as I know, there are only a few ways you can get money out of a company you own and into your pocket.
1) Income (they're getting $1).
2) Profit to shareholderes. (Taxed)
3) Sell your stock (Taxed and not in infinite supply)
4) Have the company give you a lot of free stuff like a private jet. (Available to owners in either case). You're also limitied in what sort of free stuff you can give out. They can loan them a car, (but would that qualify as a taxable benefit), but they can't give them a briefcase full of cash.
As I said, I'm not an expert, but I still don't see how this gets them money without paying tax as was suggested.
It's fairly obvious that Darby doesn't agree with "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it".
He also seems to be labouring under the delusion that Christians hate non-Christians and want to coerce them into becoming Christians. (Or at least he thinks I do). Silly rabbit...
You are quite correct that the print shop case was based on the Ontario Human Rights Act and not the Charter. I shouldn't have glossed over that information. Again, my point was not to argue at this time that the decision was unlawful or even unjust, I'm simply trying to point out how many people just don't trust assurances of religious liberty. It isn't because they're paranoid nutjobs. The Ontario Human Rights Act and the Charter are quite distinct legally, but the issue is the same both in that section of the OHRA and the judicially inserted section of the Charter. As a result, it just doesn't wash with many people if you try and say "but that was a totally different law". They see that their concerns about religious freedom were poo-pood, and then it turns out that their concerns were at least partly justified.
It's also of concern that the Charter specifically guarantees freedom of conscience and religion and that at the moment at least all law in Canada is subject to the Charter including the Ontario Human Rights Act. In theory at least the OHRA can say whatever it likes and if the Charter disagrees, the Charter trumps.
Again, I am well aware that Professional Associations can set their own standards. However these standards are subject to the Charter. This was deemed a legitimate infringement of religious freedom by the courts and that is what makes people suspicious when they are assured that their religious freedoms will not be infringed. It's not as if professional associations can enforce any behaviour they want. The BC Medical Association cannot require that all doctors refrain from expressing pro-life views. They simply require that they provide information about abortion services to patients when they're working. They're punished for writing pro-life pieces in the newspaper.
You seem to be stuck on defending the decisions that the courts came to. That was not the subject I was arguing. I'm simply suggesting that the lack of trust in government assurances has some basis in reality.
I have a good knowledge of Canadian law, government and it's roots in English Common law and French Civil law in Quebec. I see no reason to descend to insults. I'm not advocating mob rule or the end of the rule of law. Court rulings are not as simple as Courts ruling on the basis of laws enacted by the legislature. How do you interpret the Charter? On the strict literal interpretation of the words? By basing your decisions on the framers intentions? Or by interpreting the charter on the basis of evolving standards in society? Depending on your answer court decisions will be hugely different? (We don't use the first option or the second option in Canada, although both are legitimate ways of doing it based on our legal history).
The tyranny of the majority is a concern, but if you think about it how does our constitution protect us from it? The constitution was created by the majority. It can be changed to say absolutely anything by the majority. Doesn't the constitution just guarantee that laws aren't enacted in haste that compromise the principles that the majority agrees on?
I don't believe that one should "be scummy at" people. I take Christ's command to love very seriously. Loving does not mean that you can't expess an opinion about right and wrong or that you need to support things you disagree with.
I'm not saying everything about these cases is white lillies. For all I know the man in Toronto was a total jerk. Maybe he was rude. I don't know. My point is only that specific assurances were made that religious liberty would not be infringed, and shortly thereafter it was. Maybe it was a just infringement. (I don't think so, but maybe it was). The point is that assurances were made that they would not be infringed and they were.
So that's why people are suspicious of assurances like that.
Assuming the original tax statement in the story is correct, (which it seems not to be, but let's ignore that), they don't have to pay tax on capital gains on stock they sell. Google may be a cool company, but they can't arbitrarily set their stock sale price. (The various buyers in the stock market do that). So if they accept $1 salaries, they can sell stock. If they accept $1Million salaries they can sell stock. In both cases they can have google buy a jet. Nothing's changed.
Now they could funnel money to themselves by paying shareholders a dividend, but that's a totally different thing that capital gains from stock sales. Now I don't know everything about US tax law, (I'm Canadian), but I do believe that you have to pay taxes on dividends.
It's not that *every* Muslim wants to kill all the non-Muslims. They don't. But some do. And the lovely thing about technology is it makes it easier for a few people to create a *lot* of death. The wahabi's don't want to kill you because you did something to piss them off. They're pissed off and want to kill you because you're not a wahabi Muslim. They kill Muslims they don't agree with too.
That might be because the last time the government assured us that a new law wouldn't make someone compromise their religious principles that *promise* lasted only a couple of years.
If you want the details, it was when the government, (or was it just our unelected supreme court decided to add "Sexual Orientation" to the list of things you were not allowed to descriminate on the basis of that are listed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Well actually it was our unelected Supreme Court that decided to do this even though the people who'd written the Charter only a few years before had considered putting "Sexual Orientation" in the list and decided against it, but let's not get sidetracked).
This was all fine and good, but some people had concerns that their religious convictions against homosexual lifestyles would be made illegal. (For instance a religious school might get shut down for refusing to hire a man in a sexual relationship with another man). The architects of our new world order assured us this was merely our stupid redneck paranoia getting the best of us and that we shouldn't worry, because our betters would make sure that religious freedom was protected.
Some time later, a religious man in Toronto who owned a printing company was approached by an activist group wanting him to print their letter head, business cards etc. The man refused because he felt it violated his religious conscience to use his resources to aid an organization that promoted ideas contrary to his beliefs. Rather than go to another printer muttering something about ignorant dumbasses, (as some people might do if their business was refused), the group decided to make a human rights complaint. (Human rights commissions are not courts of law incidentally, but their decisions have the force of law). The man was fined $5000 and was told that he was not allowed to refuse orders like that.
A couple of other factors are interesting. This was in Toronto where there are many printers available, many of whom would have loved the business. It's not as if this action took away anyone's ability to actually get materials printed. Also, no one ever contested that the man did in fact serve gay customers and there was no suggestion that the man wouldn't serve people who were gay, merely that he wouldn't print materials promoting a homosexual lifestyle.
Now I know nothing about the situation other than what I've read, but I do have a personal connection to the next case. (Albeit a distant one).
A Christian man by the name of Chris Kempling teaches school in British Columbia. He wrote a letter to a local newspaper. (In fact he wrote one freelance column and six letters to the editor between 1997 and 2000). Dr. Kempler's views are so toxic that he addressed the UN on March 4th 2005 on the subject of Human Rights. The subject of of Dr. Kempler's letters were factual STD & promiscuity rates, that many religions consider homosexuality to be immoral, that it may be caused by negative psycho-social influences, and that it was nothing to be applauded. He did not express these views in the classroom, or in the staff room, but only in the editorial pages of the local newspaper. In 2002 he was suspended by the BC College of teachers. The suspension was upheld by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in last year.
My tenuous connection to this case is that a co-worker and friend of mine knows him personally and his father helped Dr. Kempler in his defence. (Unsuccesfully). The accounts I have heard is that Dr. Kempler is reasonable and does not descend to nasty behaviour. (Most certainly not a "redneck").
So I think you can see why
Right... Rational discussion is not possible with you. I believe there's a saying about casting pearls before swine that is somewhat apt. Later.
I can't see why an aussie should. Care to reference the law?
Oh please... You really shouldn't mention the shear unadulterated incompetence that Chretien showed on the Quebec file if you're trying to say the Liberals have proven themselves. That was among the most pathetic behaviour I have ever seen or heard of in Canadian history. The man came within a whisker of losing that referendum and Parizeau was perfectly right when he said the separatists lost because of money and the ethnic vote. It was a stupid thing for Parizeau to say but it was true. Chretien failed utterly in convincing Francophones to reject seperatism.
Flipping off Bush was stupid. Exactly what do we gain by "flipping off" the leader of another country? Particularly our largest trading partner? You can disagree without pissing off people you might need a favour from, but Chretien was incapable of that. That's small town bully behaviour, not global statesman behaviour. Can you see Lester B. Person "flipping off" the US President? No? Why not? Because he's a statesman.
Frankly your post says a lot about our country... You don't care what kind of guy Chretien is or if he's shovelling money into his friends pockets. You like him anyway. That's a sad comment on your expectations.
great... so we're as foolish as they are in SF...
Now that's insightful. I don't have any mod points, unfortunately, and you posted as anonymous so you're starting at zero. :( Maybe someone will notice this and mod you up before I get downed for abusing my +2.
Someone mod the parent up!
Vote for Kodos.
Why settle for a lesser evil?
I'm not sure you've grasped that there are two different lines of discussion in this thread. The first is free speech and the second is Christian beliefs about homosexual lifestyles. I'm engaging in the second in order to defend myself. It has no bearing on my belief in free speech. If some guy was writing letters to the editor saying that Left Handed writing was harmful to society and should be condemned I would defend his right to say so without sanction. That is completely separate from whether or not I agree with him. I do not know if I agree with everything Mr. Kempler believes about gays & lesbians but I defend his right to express his opinions (which do not call for violence) in a public forum. My agreement with him and my belief in his right to speak are completely separate. Could you please stop blurring the two together? It's a little disingenuous of you
This is especially relevant when I consider your statement that opposition to homosexuality is merely thinly disguised hatred. I do not support hatred. As a Christian I'm called to love my enemies. So I am not defending hatred. BUT ! Hatred should not be against the law. If we say "that idea is motivated by hate, if you share it we'll punish you", is a very dangerous road to start down as a society. We are an open society predicated on the free exchange of ideas. Don't change that.
Your appeal to authority as a means of argument, (by referencing our anti-free speech hate crime laws), does not constitute a valid argument. I'm well aware that free speech is unjustly legally restricted in Canada. It is an unjust law!
The rest of your post is all about arguing that I'm wrong in my beliefs and that homosexuality is okay. Interesting, but not relevant to Free Speech issue. And I don't distance myself on the sermon on the mount. I say that it's part of Jesus' teaching, and that he said a few other things as well. The biggest problem with your understanding of Christ's message is your apparent belief that tolerance & love are the same thing. As for your bubble -gum interpretation of Christianity. I suggest you actually read the bible before you comment. Premarital sex is specifically forbidden in the New Testament, as is homosexual sex. And Paul doesn't say that people get into heaven on the basis of their behaviour in life. (Not that getting into heaven is even the point of being a Christian, but that's really off topic)
You still seem to be confusing the right to free speech with "being correct" or "being tolerant". Incidentally there are two freedoms at issue here. Free Speech & religious freedom. While they are linked they are not the same thing. But to pick apart your points.
You could believe that the earth was flat, but that would not make it so.
True. And also irrelevant. True or False is irrelevant when granting free speech. Your opinion as to the truth of my statements is not relevant. You are not required to believe what I believe or even understand what I believe. You are simply required grant free speech to every point of view, not simply your own.
It is one thing to condemn behaviour that was deliberately chosen. It is quite another to condemn characteristics that were decided at the moment of conception.
Also irrelevant to the question of free speech. You don't seem to differentiate between characteristics, tendencies or actions and the people themselves. I believe that people are more than these things. People are born with many characteristics/tendencies/desires/orientations/wh atever. Some are good. Some aren't. I critique a person's actions or decisions to act on those desires (inborne or otherwise) that are bad. If using your left hand to write was immoral then left handed people would be at a disadvantage. Just as some people are born with natural advantages (great composers) others are born with handicaps. But I hesitate to even discuss this in this thread because it muddies the water. The content of a man's opinions are irrelevant when considering the right to free speech. That's the whole point.
Homosexual lifestyles? Do you also speak of heterosexual lifestyles? I thought not...
Well then you thought wrong. Homesexual lifestyles would be ones that involve sex between people of the same gender. I used the plural because there because not all homosexuals live identical lifestyles. Similarly there are multiple heterosexual lifestyles. Monogamous ones, philandering ones, etc. I fail to understand why you seem be offended by the phrase "homosexual lifestyle". The term seems fairly self-explanatory.
Personally, I find the way that you constantly juxtapose homosexuality and adultery together to be more than a little intellectually dishonest.
Well I can understand why you don't like the comparison because it's not exactly a complimentary one. But it's not intellectually dishonest. They're obviously different in some ways, but similar in others. Both are sexual sins condemned in the Bible. Both are consensual acts. Both were subject to death by stoning in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. I also often compare homosexual sex to pre-marital sex. Both are considered acceptable by our culture and both are considered sins by Christians. It's also a useful comparison because it's easier for heterosexuals to relate to the temptations of premarital sex than it is for them to understand the difficulty Christian homosexuals have in rejecting their sexual desires. But I used adultery in this case to starting a side issue over the acceptability of pre-marital sex. The issue isn't the kind of sex. It's that any sex outside a monogamous marriage is wrong.
Nobody is entitled to a job in public service you know.
Of course not. Public service jobs are given out on the basis of ability. But they're not (supposed) to be handed out on the basis of a litmus test for acceptable politics and religious beliefs. (Or at least they're not if you believe in the basic rights of the charter). Of course we're not allowed to discriminate in violation of the charter. But having an opinion & expressing that opinion is not violating the charter as that is constitutionally protected speech. Discrimination would be making homosexuals go to the back of the line. Not expressing your views in a public forum outside of work.
Oh the irony! In
That's not actually the point I'm discussing. I'm not suggesting (and I don't believe Mr. Kempler was either) that homosexuals themselves were evil, bad, criminals or anything else. But I do believe that homosexual behaviour is harmful in and of itself. (To the person themselves as well as to the rest of society). This is what is meant by "loving the sinner and hating the sin" as you phrased it. Some use "love" to mean acceptance without criticism or accountability. This is not love. Would a parent be showing love to their child if they'd didn't correct their self-destructive or wrong behaviour? What sort of friend is it that "loves" without holding their friend accountable for wrong actions? Love does not mean that I tell someone how wonderful they are just the way they are. You may not see this as possible, but I know that it is. I do it every day. Sometimes it's harder than other times. With homosexuals I find it quite easy. With Islamist terrorist I find it a lot harder.
Quoting the beatitudes is fine, but I it's a little dishonest to suggest that that represents all of Christ's teaching. The story of Jesus' encounter with the woman caught in adultery gives us a much better understanding of how would have addressed our situation with homosexuals. Both adultery & homosexual activity are considered to be similar sexual sins and both were punishable by death in Jesus' culture. He shows compassion and forgives her sin but at the same time he also tells her to "sin no more". At no point does Jesus say that she's alright just the way she is. He approaches her as he approaches all of us, (as we are) and then tells us to change our ways. I believe in doing the same when discussing homosexual lifestyles or adulterous ones. This is what I demand the right to say and what you're talking about punishing me for.
Comparing political speech to religious speech is not an apples to oranges scenarios. Both are part of the fundamental freedoms protected by the charter. Your statement that "such people ought not work in the public sector" is disturbing. You're talking about excluding anyone with religiously based values from participating in public life. This is very very wrong. (Not to mention a gross violation of charter rights if it was implemented). You might also consider that Abraham Lincoln & William Wilberforce would have been excluded from the public sector by your logic. (Wilberforce was the driving force behind the abolition of the international slave trade in the 18th Century and he was explicity motivated by his Evangelical Christian beliefs and he used Christian morality to argue his case in parliament).
You are right that I ignored your "replace 'homosexual' with 'black'" question. I ignored it because it was confusing the point by blurring the distinction between criticism of persons and criticism of lifestyle. Both Kempler and I are critical of the actions of homosexuals, not the people themselves. An appropriate comparison would be a white person saying the same things (in a public forum) that Bill Cosby did when he caused that controversy a while back by criticising the actions of the black community in the US.
But what if someone said something about the people rather than about lifestyles? (I will say again that this is NOT was Kempler said, nor is what I'm Saying with regards to homosexuals). Perhaps a teacher wrote a public letter suggesting that "
If 100% of the heterosexual population believed that homosexuality was immoral and a sin, we would still be obliged to extend the same rights and privileges to gays and lesbians that are afforded to everyone else.
Of course. But you seem to want to go a step farther and remove the right of those people to say they believe homosexual activity to be immoral and a sin. That is despicable.
Although I will grant that you found a mistake in my argument. You correctly said that teachers were not in the classroom to indoctrinate political views. I stand corrected. What I meant to say was that you might as well say a teacher should not express a political view outside the classroom. Because that's what you're saying essentially. You're saying that a person's free speech in a public forum should be subject to government sanction.
And yes, I'd say that suggests that you don't believe you should be out defending his right to speak, since you believe it should be lawful to sanction him when he does.
And I'm perfectly aware of section 15. "You hurt my feelings is not a reasonable limit".
Call me when you're interested in liberty and not just "hooray for my side".