Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proposed San Antonio Hate Speech law

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
onenewsnow.com...

The San Antonio City Council is attempting to combine all of its anti-discrimination rules and ordinances into one. The combined ordinance states a desire to adopt a “comprehensive and expanded non-discrimination policy with revisions to outdated terminology.” -

The ordinance currently being discussed would exclude anyone who had ever spoken out against homosexuality or transgenders from being allowed to run for office or to contract with the city!!

onenewsnow.com...


According to Pastor Charles Flowers of Faith Outreach International, the city leaders want to add two categories to the policy: sexual orientation and gender identity.

“The ordinance also says that if you have at any point demonstrated a bias – without defining what a bias is or who will determine whether or not one has been exercised – that you cannot get a city contract,” he tells OneNewsNow. “Neither can any of your subcontractors [who have demonstrated a bias] sign on to the contract.”

Moreover, according to a draft of the revised policy, no one who has spoken out against homosexuality or the transgender lifestyle can run for city council or be appointed to a board. Flowers says the Arizona-based legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom has taken a look at the ordinance.


onenewsnow.com...


Somewhere they've lost sight of freedom of Speech and freedom of religion.




posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
(Self-Clip)

- Edited for failure to read last two paragraphs of source article. My bad. Forgive me, Op.
edit on 23-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Wonder why this post isn't showing in my "recent posts" drop-down?
edit on 23-7-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-7-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 


Id like to say this would be eviscerated in the courts, but who really knows?



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Pastor Flowers is actually speaking against the ordinance.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Going to be blunt here and if people take offense well I am not sorry.

The biggest reason for 'Hate speech' Laws is:

Don't say nothing bad about another person they might be dumb enough to believe what they say.

That is what it boils down to.

It is tantamount to the Nazis burning books that says things they didn't like.

Freedom of speech is just that Freedom of speech that is formed from thought so they are the thought police.



Laws do not nor have they ever changed the hearts of man dunno why some people think they do.
edit on 23-7-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Have they not shown a "bias" themselves?
Have they not judged homosexuality and transgenderism to be correct, whilst denying all others to make their own judgements?
Hypocrisy and iniquity.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
You all get why this is being done right?

Say I'm Contractor X and I say I hate (insert any group) as loudly as I want. I get a contract from the gov't. That is gov't endorsing me and my backwards views, think of it like vicarious liability.

What's so hard to grasp that the gov't can even be remotely tied to speech/actions which seek to deny liberty to all or denigrate a select few of society?

I'm sure all the white folks here would have no problem with all the contracts going the Black Panthers, right?

How about some right wing Islamists getting all the best jobs and acting the way that all right wing nut jobs act?

Derek



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Viesczy
You all get why this is being done right?

Say I'm Contractor X and I say I hate (insert any group) as loudly as I want. I get a contract from the gov't. That is gov't endorsing me and my backwards views, think of it like vicarious liability.

What's so hard to grasp that the gov't can even be remotely tied to speech/actions which seek to deny liberty to all or denigrate a select few of society?

I'm sure all the white folks here would have no problem with all the contracts going the Black Panthers, right?

How about some right wing Islamists getting all the best jobs and acting the way that all right wing nut jobs act?

Derek


At least some Islamists and the Black Panthers are recognized organizations that have promoted violence against folks who are not like themselves. Yet people can still be members of these groups, and get contracts or be elected to office. The "hate speech" being targeted is just speech that the LGBT groups judge to be so. It is a clear violation of the first amendment.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Hmmm. Let me look up "shall not be infringed" again. I must be misunderstanding something....



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Fall in line or you'll be on the streets.

...is basically what they're saying. The city won't hire you if you don't think the way it wants you to think. Can the manipulation be any more obvious?



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 


This would be a violation of freedom of speech. If a politician says something offensive the electorate can vote for the other person.
edit on 23-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 



Hmmm. Let me look up "shall not be infringed" again. I must be misunderstanding something....


Uh, yea, you are misunderstanding something, you are looking at the wrong amendment, that's part of the 2nd Amendment, not the 1st Amendment.

There really is a 1st Amendment, the entirety of the United States Constitution isn't the words "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There's more to it than that. Heck, there's even more to that amendment than that. If you can't even get through an Amendment of the United States Constitution that is one sentence long. Perhaps arguing politics isn't for you.

That being said.

The article never said you couldn't run for council if you have demonstrated a bias, it only said that you can't have demonstrated a bias and be awarded a contract from the city.

edit on 24-7-2013 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join