[AF] It's a "WHAT"

[Jerry Mathis]

Your information is only partially correct. Comments embedded below:

On 5/5/07, Rex Hyum Lee <rex at verticalradio.org> wrote:
>
>
> o=iii=<()
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rex Hyum Lee
> To: af at radiolists.net
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 5:15 PM
> Subject: It's a "WHAT"
>
>
> Jerry Mathis wrote:
>
> "The law specifically states that its purpose is not to prevent people
> from
> speaking out on their opinion of these classes of people."
>
> Have you read the bill, I have.  It is structured somewhat like the "bill"
> that Canada passed a year and a half ago.
> Result, a Pastor was sent to prison for reading from the "Bible"



I did a lttle research myself, and found that the reason he was convicted is
because his flyers (he was not "reading" speech from the Bible) had Bible
quotes, and then had pictures of two men together (stick figures) with a red
circle around them and a diagonal red slash across it. And he was not
convicted under the C-250 law, it was a local human rights law. AND, you
fail to mention that a higher court later overturned the conviction. And the
opinion of many is that he would not have been convicted under law C-250.

Sweden passed a similar law a year earlier, two Clergymen from
> that beautiful land incarcerated.


I found a reference to one clergy, Mr Aka Green. Some details: Pastor Green
gave a sermon on homosexuality that could only be described as an attack.
His sermon had more in common with Fred Phelps than Jesus Christ. He was
convicted, but ultimately the conviction was overturned by the Swedish
Supreme Court, on the basis that religious opinions could not be used to
convict.

Quote,
> "the law is intended"
>
> So were the Canadian and Swedish laws!
>
> another quote,
> "The fact that they want to defeat the law tells me that they wish to
> still
> be able to discriminate against gay people"
> to which I reply,
> Discriminate?  No......  Protect the freedom of speech, and our children?
> YES!


Your freedoms are safe. These laws are not designed to prosecute pastors or
churches.

continuing,
> "and the disabled"
> Reply................"WHAT?,....... I have served the disabled for many
> years!"


Congratulations. Then I assume you don't want to see them discriminated
against?


and yet again,
> "Discrimination or Protection. Which side of the debate are YOU on? Anyone
> care to confess?"
>
> "PROTECTION FROM"
> I'll Confess! and Testify to the fact that I quite handily evicted the
> young man from my car
> after I felt sorry for him, and gave him a ride in the hot summer sun,
> when he tried to
> FORCE  a "BJ" on me..... after I politely explained to him that I was not
> "Gay"..... No that
> would be too "PC" for me, ......  I believe the correct word is "QUEER"
> "Protect ME from THEM!



If he tried to FORCE you participate in an undesired sexual act, you should
have reported him to the police. Rape is rape, regardless of sexual
orientation.


I do however agree with Douglas Pritchett when he said
> "Sure could have used that in the 60's in Mississippi. They are just now
> getting around to prosecuting murders committed during the Civil Rights
> struggle where local all-white grand juries would routinely refuse to
> indict."



True. Emmett Till is the "poster child" for this law. His murderers got away
with it because the Federal Government didn't get involved.


JM


   from the least of these....... rex.
>
>