One Million Moms rally at JcPenny's to fire Ellen Degeneres for being GAY!

Originally posted by sweetliberty
Show me where NOM's and AFA are hate groups.

This is getting ridiculous.

I just showed you where AFA is officially listed as a hate group.

NOM is an anti-gay group.

Jeff Cohen "FAIR" is a journalist. The best you can say about his opinion of SPLC - - is it is an opinion piece.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by sweetliberty
Show me where NOM's and AFA are hate groups.

This is getting ridiculous.

I just showed you where AFA is officially listed as a hate group.

NOM is an anti-gay group.

Jeff Cohen "FAIR" is a journalist. The best you can say about his opinion of SPLC - - is it is an opinion piece.

And I showed you earlier where they aren't a hate group, they aren't recongized as one either.

The SPLC text you quoted in your last post differs greatly with the left leaning New York Times about Bryan Fischer. According to this.

www.afa.net...

TextBryan Fischer is the Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at the American Family Association, where he provides expertise on a range of public policy topics. Described by the New York Times as a "talk-radio natural," he hosts the "Focal Point" radio program on AFR Talk,which airs live on weekdays from 1-3 p.m. Central on American Family Radio's nationwide talk network of 145 stations.

And the best you can say about SPLC is the same... opinion

reply to post by Annee


You can show me what other people and other groups claim about NOM's or AFA but you can not specifically give me any actual facts, quotes or video straight from these groups.

I tried sourcing SPLC's claims on quotes and so far, I've come up empty.

I can give you proof about OWS if I claim something about them. I can go straight to the horses mouth. You haven't.

You can not provide me any proof NOM's is a hate group.

Just like the opposing team, they are fighters. But because they fight for their principles, you hate on them.

That's the bottom line.

Eta: earlier this morning I left a voice mail message with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage. I gave my phone number, email address and the nature of my call..
I followed that with an email to him but the email came back "permanent failure" so I left him another voice mail asking for another email address.
I would like to get his side of the story as per your post to his one word statements on that radio show.

reply to post by sweetliberty


The legal definition of Hate Speech is as follows:

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.

Now, a group espousing said notions of hatred as forcing gays into “reparative” therapy, can certainly be labeled as a group that is committing hate speech. (www.afa.net...)

Hence the apt label Hate Group.

Originally posted by sweetliberty
And the best you can say about SPLC is the same... opinion

BS.

The SPLC is a law firm with a legitimate history.

The government takes it seriously.

I really give a bull pucky what some journalist's opinion is - - compared to a lengthy legitimate history. Are they perfect? Doubt it. Who is?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by sweetliberty
And the best you can say about SPLC is the same... opinion

BS.

The SPLC is a law firm with a legitimate history.

The government takes it seriously.

I really give a bull pucky what some journalist's opinion is.

Then why do you post them here, for instance, Bill O'Reilly. Sorry but I can't stand it when you dismiss something until it suits your agenda

Fyi, I'm not sure if you noticed I edited my last post.

Eta: earlier this morning I left a voice mail message with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage. I gave my phone number, email address and the nature of my call.. I followed that with an email to him but the email came back "permanent failure" so I left him another voice mail asking for another email address. I would like to get his side of the story as per your post to his one word statements on that radio show. edit on 11-2-2012 by sweetliberty beca

There is a point when an intentional closed door becomes too absurd to bother with.

Facts speak for themselves.

Originally posted by Furbs
reply to post by sweetliberty

 

The legal definition of Hate Speech is as follows:

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.

Now, a group espousing said notions of hatred as forcing gays into “reparative” therapy, can certainly be labeled as a group that is committing hate speech. (www.afa.net...)

Hence the apt label Hate Group.

Yes, I totally agree with you. Suggesting reparative therapy is very hateful, imo. Thank you for showing me that. It's sad to think of the internal harm that could cause someone who might be confused already.

I don't believe in harboring regret or guilt and sadly that could create a unbearable guilt esp if delivered by non professionals. That would make me cry if I thought about it long enough.

Originally posted by Annee
There is a point when an intentional closed door becomes too absurd to bother with.

Facts speak for themselves.

edit on 11-2-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

You can chose to spread negativity towards an opposing group with your hate language just like Ellen chooses to do
You can also claim not to paint a broad brush across the board towards people and groups but your posts show different

Me, I'd rather take the same road the JC Penny CEO took.
He was able to defend both groups freedom of speech and their right to assemble. He also respectfully defended his choice to hire Ellen and protected her in the process.
And without spewing out crap.

reply to post by sweetliberty


How can you say anything when you don't acknowledge the fact that no one's rights are being infringed upon in any way.

reply to post by sweetliberty


this is good example of how words shape our thinking - the way words make us feel sets us up for certain kinds of predictable actions and reactions

if we had this same discussion but removed the word hate - I wonder how it would go?

I think it's worth a real conversation and a better response than this - but I have to go now

I'll have a better reply later

well - you can decide if it's better - it'll be another reply at least

:-)

‘Shop-In’ Sunday to Support JCPenney, Ellen

Two bloggers have initiated a social media campaign promoting a “shop-in” at JCPenney this Sunday, Feb. 12, to support the retailer’s partnering with Ellen DeGeneres. It is meant to counter public criticism and pressure to end the partnership by One Million Moms, a conservative advocacy group opposed to having an openly gay person represent JCPenney.

Tracey Gaughran-Perez, 41, who blogs about motherhood at sweetney.com and babble.com, described the shop-in in parenting terms: “One Million Moms is like a bully trying to get JCPenney to sever ties with Ellen because she’s gay. What we’re doing is like parents coming together and standing up against bullies.” (ABC News and babble.com are owned by Disney.)

The JCPenney Shop-In Facebook page encourages people to shop at JCPenney, in a store or online, to take a photo of themselves while shopping and to post the photo on Facebook, Twitter or anywhere online, including the hashtag #jcpshopin. Since the page went up on Thursday, 885 people listed themselves as “going,” and 4,648 people have been invited. There were 76 “maybes.” abcnews.go.com...

Originally posted by Furbs
reply to post by sweetliberty

 

The legal definition of Hate Speech is as follows:

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.

Now, a group espousing said notions of hatred as forcing gays into “reparative” therapy, can certainly be labeled as a group that is committing hate speech. (www.afa.net...)

Hence the apt label Hate Group.

forced?
who ? where do you get that gays are forced into reparative therapy?
Are pedophiles beyond help too?
I ask because as far as I know, not even pedophiles are forced into therapy of any sorts if they do cot concede to it or want it.

You guys are just into sensationalism using firey wording to sell your own form of hateful rhetoric.
In this thread, YOU GUYS are the ones using hatespeech in almost every post to demonize someone to sell your views.

FORCED? really?

reply to post by manna2


Gulp. I should have noticed that, lol.
I don't think they force anyone into therapy, good call.

Now on the other hand, when someone willingly accepts therapy, I personally wouldn't want them to have that particular kind of therapy. It, imo, sounds far too judgmental and might create more confusion and harm their self worth.
It sounds like it labels someone bad or wrong from the start.

Imo, that sounds like negative therapy. Scary.

reply to post by andersensrm

Nothing is being forced, here is where your argument falls apart

Yes, it most certainly is. I have posted the vids of schoolchildren being forced to think about and discuss gays and gay sex in class. I have seen articles about people who tried to opt their kids out of this type of program and being arrested on site for opposing the agenda. Yes, it is being forced. Anyone who says it's not is just not being honest about it.

Originally posted by sweetliberty

Originally posted by Annee
There is a point when an intentional closed door becomes too absurd to bother with.

Facts speak for themselves.

edit on 11-2-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

You can chose to spread negativity towards an opposing group with your hate language just like Ellen chooses to do

You can also claim not to paint a broad brush across the board towards people and groups but your posts show different

Me, I'd rather take the same road the JC Penny CEO took.
He was able to defend both groups freedom of speech and their right to assemble. He also respectfully defended his choice to hire Ellen and protected her in the process.
And without spewing out crap.

So a group protesting against Jcpenneys because they hired a spokesperson who's gay isn't hateful, but said spokesperson speaking against them is? Quite the double standard you have there.

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

good for the goose good for the gander

The archdiocese should be able to send priests in to the schoolrooms to give the children lessons in sensitivity to not hurt Christians' feelings because they have been so spit upon by the radical left atheists. They must have classes on a weekly basis and the parents cannot opt out or they will be arrested on site.
There how's that buddy!

Well, does that actaully happen, or are you just going on a hunch here and assuming that becuase it happens to gays by religious people, the exact opposite probably happens as well? Because I've never heard of any cases like that happening.

edit on 8-2-2012 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)

All I was doing with that post was showing how seculars hate Christianity so much, and attack it regularly, constantly trying to remove the Ten Commandments from buildings and prayers from school and so on, and yet feel that gays have a right to proselytize young students without impunity.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

good for the goose good for the gander

The archdiocese should be able to send priests in to the schoolrooms to give the children lessons in sensitivity to not hurt Christians' feelings because they have been so spit upon by the radical left atheists. They must have classes on a weekly basis and the parents cannot opt out or they will be arrested on site.
There how's that buddy!

Well, does that actaully happen, or are you just going on a hunch here and assuming that becuase it happens to gays by religious people, the exact opposite probably happens as well? Because I've never heard of any cases like that happening.

edit on 8-2-2012 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)

All I was doing with that post was showing how seculars hate Christianity so much, and attack it regularly, constantly trying to remove the Ten Commandments from buildings and prayers from school and so on, and yet feel that gays have a right to proselytize young students without impunity.

Not really. You didn't say any of that stuff. All you did was just make a claim which you didn't back up (and now pretending you've never made it).

Anyways, saying that someone is attacking christanity because they don't want their taxpayer dollars to be going towards advertising it is like saying that someone hates islam because they don't like sharia law. It's not the religion they hate, but what the religion is doing (Yes, I know they're generalizations).

I don't hate Christians. The Christian Right doesn't make it easy though.

We are a secular government. We are NOT a Christian nation. No specific religion should be represented on any government property. That includes the 10 Commandments.

Every person - of every religion or non-religion - - - needs to feel free and not affronted in/on any government property.

Yeah yeah yeah - - - Creator with certain unalienable rights. Creator was not even part of the first 2 drafts of the Constitution. And since most were Deists - - it can only represent the Deist concept of God - - which is the universe creation God - - not the Christian God.

Originally posted by manna2

Originally posted by Furbs
reply to post by sweetliberty

 

The legal definition of Hate Speech is as follows:

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.

Now, a group espousing said notions of hatred as forcing gays into “reparative” therapy, can certainly be labeled as a group that is committing hate speech. (www.afa.net...)

Hence the apt label Hate Group.

forced?
who ? where do you get that gays are forced into reparative therapy?
Are pedophiles beyond help too?
I ask because as far as I know, not even pedophiles are forced into therapy of any sorts if they do cot concede to it or want it.

You guys are just into sensationalism using firey wording to sell your own form of hateful rhetoric.
In this thread, YOU GUYS are the ones using hatespeech in almost every post to demonize someone to sell your views.

FORCED? really?

Click the link in my post and read. It's all right there.