Thursday, February 15, 2007

'Natural family' called derogatory to 'gays'

Arguments to be heard in Oakland's censorship of Christian workers

Posted: February 15, 2007

A special session of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being held today at the Stanford University Law School where lawyers are arguing whether the words "natural family, marriage and family values" constitute "hate speech" that could intimidate city of Oakland workers.

The words were used by two city employees who wanted to launch a group of people who shared their interests and posted a notice on a city bulletin board after a series of notices from homosexual activists were delivered to them via the city's e-mail system, bulletin boards and memo distribution system.

But Robert Bobb, then city manager, and Joyce Hicks, then deputy director of the Community and Economic Development Agency, ordered their notice removed, because it contained "statements of a homophobic nature" and promoted "sexual-orientation-based harassment."

The women, Regina Rederford and Robin Christy, also were threatened with firing from their city jobs because of their posting, according to their lawsuit against the city, which alleges Oakland's anti-discrimination policy "promotes homosexuality" and "openly denounces Christian values."

Attorneys Scott Lively and Richard D. Ackerman are arguing on behalf of the women in the First Amendment case that Christians have equal rights at work to use neutral language to talk about same-sex marriage and other issues.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had ruled in 2005 that Oakland had a right to prevent the employees from posting a Good News Employee Association flier promoting traditional family values on the office bulletin board, even though homosexual city workers already had been using multiple communications systems in the city to promote their message to other workers, including the plaintiffs. Whole Story


I am still trying to figure out how "natural family, marriage and family values" constitute "hate speech" .

I must really be stupid because I do not understand how in the HELL these statements could be considered even close to homophobic in nature or are sexual based harassment.

If anybody can make this connection please let me know.

Personally, I would be offended and disgusted if I had to read crap promoting the gay "lifestyle" daily at work. To me this would be sexual harassment for the "straight" person.

No Gay Agenda? Yeah right!


No comments:

Post a Comment

Don't be scared!