Crazy People Are Dangerous: Anthony Halliday a/k/a ‘Stephanie Hayden’

The face of mental illness…

Do you see what happens when we permit the rhetoric of “civil rights” to be hijacked by lunatics and perverts? Graham Linehan never sought to interfere with Halliday’s fetish of wearing women’s clothing and pretending to be a woman named “Stephanie.” Rather, it is the bullying behavior of “transgender activism” which brought Halliday/“Hayden” to public attention and prompted Linehan’s criticism.

If your state or local authorities attempt to impose transgender “equality” by law, your free-speech rights could soon be similarly infringed.

Source: Crazy People Are Dangerous: Anthony Halliday a/k/a ‘Stephanie Hayden’ Continue reading Crazy People Are Dangerous: Anthony Halliday a/k/a ‘Stephanie Hayden’

David Limbaugh – The Democratic Party’s Christian Problem

When leftists aren’t denying their prejudice, they often selectively cite Scripture to “prove” that Jesus Christ was a social justice warrior or that the Bible mandates open borders. Oh, yes, and Jesus didn’t judge people as we dastardly conservatives do. In a 2010 piece, liberal professor Michael Shermer quoted the oft-misinterpreted passage in which Jesus begins, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Then Shermer declared: “Would any red-blooded, gun-(toting), Hummer-driving, hard-drinking, Bible-(toting) conservative today (say) anything like this? (Matthew 5:43-44): ‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.'” (It is astounding that leftists see themselves as tolerant and nonjudgmental, but I’ll let their record speak for itself on this.)

I’ve never met a ‘Hummer-driving’ anybody. They are, or were, expensive. Only rich liberals could afford them.

Source: David Limbaugh – The Democratic Party’s Christian Problem

Church sign reads ‘LGBT is hate crime vs. God, repent,’ draws protest

After many labeling the sign as “anti-LGBT” expressed outrage, the church did not buckle or apologize to observes who were offended by the sign, arguing that it is called by God to warn sinners and lead them to repentance.

Truth hurts. Good for the church for not buckling.

Source: Church sign reads ‘LGBT is hate crime vs. God, repent,’ draws protest

They’re Here, They’re Queer, and Now They’re Coming for Christians — and for Our Jobs

This week it was a CrossFit executive who was fired. Next week it could be you.

Make no mistake: this is about power. There are powerful lawmakers and cultural influencers who want to shut Christians up—to make it illegal for us to speak openly about the biblical view of marriage and sexuality.  They truly believe that Christianity is not only hateful, but harmful. Something that should be classified as hate speech so that the full force of the American legal system can be used to snuff out public Christianity.

Source: They’re Here, They’re Queer, and Now They’re Coming for Christians — and for Our Jobs

How To Spot And Critique Censorship Tropes In The Media’s Coverage Of Free Speech Controversies

Example: “hate speech is excluded from protection. dont [sic] just say you love the constitution . . . read it.” CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo, on Twitter, February 6, 2015.
Example: “I do not know if American courts would find much of what Charlie Hebdo does to be hate speech unprotected by the Constitution, but I know—hope?—that most Americans would.” Edward Schumacher-Matos, NPR, February 6, 2015.

In the United States, “hate speech” is an argumentative rhetorical category, not a legal one.

“Hate speech” means many things to many Americans. There’s no widely accepted legal definition in American law. More importantly, as Professor Eugene Volokh explains conclusively, there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. Americans are free to impose social consequences on ugly speech, but the government is not free to impose official sanctions upon it. In other words, even if the phrase “hate speech” had a recognized legal definition, it would still not carry legal consequences.

This is not a close or ambiguous question of law.

When the media frames a free speech story as an inquiry into whether something is “hate speech,” it’s asking a question of morals or taste poorly disguised as a question of law. It’s the equivalent of asking “is this speech rude?”

source: Popehat