Protests at Albright College: Two Sides Square Off on Issue of ...

Craig in OKC wrote:

<quoted text> You really think the comments made are as innocent as "God Loves You and wants to save you?". You've obviously never been subjected to these groups of people. The more common speech is "You are perverse", "You are going to Hell", "Your relationship means nothing" etc etc. They aren't generally comments that drip with "love". So, yes, my comparison is valid.
And, again, the threat of imprisonment wasn't for what they said - it was for their actions of disobeying the police. Why can't any of you admit that? Oh, because then that makes YOUR side the lawbreakers instead of the victims.

On the first part, you have no proof of what was actually said and I for have dealt with evangelicals as I was one and my wife is one.

On the second part, the Christians were charged with "ethnic intimidation" AND one of them face 47 years of imprisonment.

So what you're actually doing is defending the ability of some and the state to imprison people for excerising their right. And if you for on moment believe that doing these things helps anyone you sir are sadly mistaken. If anything it makes a felony out of "offensive" speech and "justifies" even worse behaviour. I mean if someone feels that mere speech will land them in prison for decades on end why stop at using words. I mean if you're gonna be a bear, be a grizzly bear. Do you follow what I'm say here?

Nuyorican wrote:

<quoted text>
On the first part, you have no proof of what was actually said and I for have dealt with evangelicals as I was one and my wife is one.
On the second part, the Christians were charged with "ethnic intimidation" AND one of them face 47 years of imprisonment.
So what you're actually doing is defending the ability of some and the state to imprison people for excerising their right. And if you for on moment believe that doing these things helps anyone you sir are sadly mistaken. If anything it makes a felony out of "offensive" speech and "justifies" even worse behaviour. I mean if someone feels that mere speech will land them in prison for decades on end why stop at using words. I mean if you're gonna be a bear, be a grizzly bear. Do you follow what I'm say here?

I follow what you are saying, but it's still a lie. NO ARRESTS WERE MADE FOR ANYTHING BEING SAID. The arrests were for their unlawful ACTIONS.
I also used to belong to the Evangelical movement (God help me), and I know EXACTLY the phrasing that is used by these groups because sadly I used to use it.(The evangelical fundie movement is full of self-loathing homosexuals like I was.)
But, you just believe what you want. The facts don't support it, though.

So they weren't arrested for "ethnic intimidation"?? It was all lie perpetrated by the vast right wing evangelical conspiracy?? And the Reading Eagle, which reported on it and the Philadelphia Inquirer are in on it.

Okay. If you say so and that's what you want to believe. But it doesn't change the actual facts of that case AND that homosexuals have been made a protected class through propaganda and intimidation tactics. Tactics that in the end can only backfire to the detriment of ALL americans.

Craig in OKC wrote:

<quoted text> I follow what you are saying, but it's still a lie. NO ARRESTS WERE MADE FOR ANYTHING BEING SAID. The arrests were for their unlawful ACTIONS.
I also used to belong to the Evangelical movement (God help me), and I know EXACTLY the phrasing that is used by these groups because sadly I used to use it.(The evangelical fundie movement is full of self-loathing homosexuals like I was.)
But, you just believe what you want. The facts don't support it, though.

Nuyorican wrote:

So they weren't arrested for "ethnic intimidation"?? It was all lie perpetrated by the vast right wing evangelical conspiracy?? And the Reading Eagle, which reported on it and the Philadelphia Inquirer are in on it.
Okay. If you say so and that's what you want to believe. But it doesn't change the actual facts of that case AND that homosexuals have been made a protected class through propaganda and intimidation tactics. Tactics that in the end can only backfire to the detriment of ALL americans.
<quoted text>

Please provide the links to your stories, because that is nothing like I have ever read.

Craig in OKC wrote:

<quoted text> Please provide the links to your stories, because that is nothing like I have ever read.

I've already provided the two sources from the time of that incident. But you choose to ignore them. And since you've already made up your mind that homosexuals have not by intent or otherwise become a protected group, although anyone could actually see that from the events California, I will leave you to toss about on the sea of cherry-picked "facts" you've chosen for yourself. It's seems you're only interested in the "facts" that support your myopic view of things and not the truth. That truth being that freedom of speech is not just a right, but a safety valve.

Max Pain wrote:

<quoted text>
I could careless what homosexuals do, my friend. Just let us st8 people have marriage as it's been defined forever. Call it what ever you want when 2 guys or 2 women want equal rights. I hear people talking about tolerance...please tolerate st8 peoples opinions also.....PEACE!

Well said brother!! Lets hope the butt bangers can do this... the world would be alot more peaceful that way.

Carbide wrote:

<quoted text>
Again you sound like a child. Are you just coming into puberty? Seriously, make some intelligent posts and people might want to tolerate you and your lifestyle.
I am guessing you are just a troll so you points and stance on this issue are void.

Good morning to you....wow, should be a wonderful day.....PEACE!

It says in the article that Judy Shepard carries "the polar opposite message" (to hate). If that is true, why is it that Judy Shepard only will criticize hate-crimes committed by people who are not wealthy? For example, why not criticize the Saudi government? The Saudi government institutionalizes hate against other religious groups and against gays. To be gay in Saudi Arabia you risk arrest, imprisonment, torture and a public beheading. You can't get much more of a perfect example of a hate crime with Saudi Arabia. Yet a
Judy Shepard's husband worked as an oil man for the Saudi government and handsome amounts of money. Could this have something to do with Judy Shepard's silence?There seems to be a pattern here with Judy Shepard of hypocrisy. Is this Judy Shepard's message? hate crimes are bad unless you offer lots of cash to Judy Shepard or to someone or something associated with her? Something to ask Judy Shepard at her next public appearance.

Nuyorican wrote:

Aah, the economy must not be in such bad shape when people show up to deal with what is essentially a non-issue. While I respect the right of anyone to protest, I don't respect people who waste their time putting on publicity stunts. And, BTW, Ms. Shepherd should quit making money off her dead son who she should have taught not to go off in the dark with strangers. Or was there something else going. It's been understood that his death may have actually been more drug related than having been the result of some supposed "hate" crime. I wish people would protest real day to day things like gee, I don't, umm the deaths of inner city youths who seem to die without anyone batting an eye. Guess they're not as important as the new protected class of people called "gays".
Also, does anyone know if Ms. Sheperd was paid for her visit?

Difference is, gay people aren't putting themselves purposely in harm's way. some of the inner city youth that are dying are. they join a gang. Um, gangs mean you will likely be shot at. But, many are practically forced into it, so it depends. There are plenty of people who speak out for inner city youth , also ever heard of youth centers? there are lots of programs. So what if shepherd talks about gays. stp being so sensitive.

I can't believe all this stupidity and intolerance...

Ernest Schlegel wrote:

Max I agree with you on the marriage thing. As I have said here before I am a gay man and do believe that marriage is defined by the church. There should not be gay marriage there should be domestic partnership. And a growing number of the LGBT community thinks the same.As far as it being the same issues I assure you it is not. I'll give you a scenario: Some body has a heart attack and goes into a coma. The partner shows up to the hospital and asks to get information. The first question asked of them is are you family. If you say no they can and will most often deny a person then to be involve in their medical care. EVEN in some states a DOCUMENT MEANS NOTHING if you are not a relative. This is shamefull but true. But planning is the key here.

I have a completely different take on the issue of gay marriage. Why is the government involved in the marriage business at all? Why not just allow marriage to be recognized by the church? That would resolve the whole issue without prejudice to anybody.