By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - “Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination.”

In the case of Okwedy v. Molinari, decided in 2003, Sotomayor sat on a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court’s ruling (from 2001) against Keyword Ministries and its pastor, Kristopher Okwedy. The ministry had purchased billboard advertisements featuring Bible verses that condemned homosexuality.
 
The ads were taken down after a local government official complained about their message to the company that owned the billboard, and Okwedy sued both the company and the government official who wrote the complaint.

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50678

 

I think the billboard owner should have to give a full refund.  If he wanted to approve each message, before he sold space that is fine  But taking it down after the fact is wrong.

Will I be banned for the thread title?

 



Repent or be destroyed

Around the Network

The thread title is off topic, that's the only rule you're breaking but I'm sure the mods don't care.

As for the case, this is a more criminal issue isn't it. Surely in the USA rules exists against inciting hatred and violence against a groups. If so this would be breaking the law and as far as I know it is illegal to make money from a crime.

I dunno, I know nothing about 'USA law, perhaps someone here knows a bit more.



Thread title is not off topic. The thread title is what was posted on the billboard



Repent or be destroyed

CommunistHater said:

In the case of Okwedy v. Molinari, decided in 2003, Sotomayor sat on a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court’s ruling (from 2001) against Keyword Ministries and its pastor, Kristopher Okwedy. The ministry had purchased billboard advertisements featuring Bible verses that condemned homosexuality.
 
The ads were taken down after a local government official complained about their message to the company that owned the billboard, and Okwedy sued both the company and the government official who wrote the complaint.

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50678

 

I think the billboard owner should have to give a full refund.  If he wanted to approve each message, before he sold space that is fine  But taking it down after the fact is wrong.

Will I be banned for the thread title?

 

It's actually about free speech. It's not telling you to die and yeah, if they took it down, they should be sued.

No, I doubt you'll be banned for having a Scripture in the thread title.

However, what does this have to do with Sotomayor?



madskillz said:
CommunistHater said:

In the case of Okwedy v. Molinari, decided in 2003, Sotomayor sat on a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court’s ruling (from 2001) against Keyword Ministries and its pastor, Kristopher Okwedy. The ministry had purchased billboard advertisements featuring Bible verses that condemned homosexuality.
 
The ads were taken down after a local government official complained about their message to the company that owned the billboard, and Okwedy sued both the company and the government official who wrote the complaint.

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50678

 

I think the billboard owner should have to give a full refund.  If he wanted to approve each message, before he sold space that is fine  But taking it down after the fact is wrong.

Will I be banned for the thread title?

 

It's actually about free speech. It's not telling you to die and yeah, if they took it down, they should be sued.

No, I doubt you'll be banned for having a Scripture in the thread title.

However, what does this have to do with Sotomayor?

Conservative groups try to show, that Sotomayor is not capable to become a member of the Supreme Court, by searching for cases, where she may have decided in a way they don't like.

In this case, as CommunistHater stated, she ruled that the ad, with the bible verse, was rightful taken down.

The Cons claim, that this was against free speach and anti-religous.

Sotomayor explained that, while the verse used in the ad is in the bible, it's sense is not pure-religous, but political motivated which lets it fall under the general policy against ‘intolerance’ and ‘bigotry’ expressed in New York law and the New York City Administrative Code § 8-101.

 

Judge for yourself why this case from 2003 is brought up now. The linked article is telling it all, so this is just a short summary ^^

 



Around the Network
highwaystar101 said:
The thread title is off topic, that's the only rule you're breaking but I'm sure the mods don't care.

As for the case, this is a more criminal issue isn't it. Surely in the USA rules exists against inciting hatred and violence against a groups. If so this would be breaking the law and as far as I know it is illegal to make money from a crime.

I dunno, I know nothing about 'USA law, perhaps someone here knows a bit more.

It falls under freedom of speech, and freedom of expression.



@fmc
Religion does motivate people to tell others to change their behavior. Preventing people from doing this is government suppression of religion



Repent or be destroyed

I like your sig.



i think her ruling about the firemen should be enough to show that she doesnt deserve the job.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

The government does have a legal right and a obligation to curtail free speech in regards to public safety and public decency. Including vulgar and bigoted material that is publicly viewed. In this case the court has held up what is considered a public decency law. The same kind of laws that prevent you from running nude through the streets, streaming off a massive list of profanity in public, or engaging in sexual conduct in public.

Free speech is not speech free of civic responsibility. You are free to express your views in a civil manner. That does not cause undue harm to others. Nor should you be wishing to cause harm to others. You are not permitted to run into a crowded building screaming fire. Any more then you are permitted to hang a billboard with hate speech that causes mental anguish to others in your community.

Further more those that rent publicly viewed space are liable for the contents. It is a matter of contract law. No entity is required to continue within a contract that has been deemed illegal by the government. Once the pastor was found to be a violation of the law the contract ceased at that point forward. The provider had no obligation to refund said money.

Frankly it was a right call by the court. The material was publicly indecent, and thus not suitable for public viewing. Just as much as a person presented in the nude, or a list of profanity. Further more it is blatantly obvious that the material was intentionally bigoted in nature. Which is the very definition of the intent to cause harm.

Lastly I would say that the title is offensive, and this thread should be locked. Though I would say if your earnest in your interest to discuss this. Create a new thread with a less heinous title, and ask a moderator to lock and link this thread for you. Those words being used have been a rallying cry for the persecution of homosexuals.