Anti-Gay Campaining a BIG NO NO?

When I read this story, I had to wonder why this type of bill has not been passed aimed at preventing anti-Christian rhetoric? Hmmmmm........... I sure hope that the California State Senate has enough intelligence to Kill this one.

And the Left Marches ON!

Quote:

---

Cybercast News Service reports that the California Assembly has passed legislation aimed at preventing candidates from using "anti-gay rhetoric" in their political campaigns.

The bill adds "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to California's Code of Fair Campaign Practices -- a voluntary "anti-discrimination" pledge that is given to every candidate for public office.

"This bill red flags candidates and campaign committees to think twice before using anti-gay rhetoric as a campaign tactic," says Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California, the group that helped write the bill.

Kors says the bill should prompt candidates to be "thoughtful and culturally sensitive to the constituencies they hope to represent."

---

Full Story: http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewCulture....20050426b.html

And why should sexual orientation based rhetoric be allowed? Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of how they get their rocks off. Political campaigning is sleazy enough as it is.

Quote:

---

And why should sexual orientation based rhetoric be allowed?

---

Some would call it freedom of speech.

But let's face it -- politicians don't have that freedom. We had one politician say something along the lines of "those damn immigrants" a few months back. He was charged with inciting hatred.

Personally, I think that the freedom of speech should apply to politicians as well as everyone else; let the vote decide if they still deserve to be in office. Unfortunately, everybody has the right to free speech -- except politicians.

Wow, this is pretty awful. I knew California was liberal, but didn't think it was so open-minded as to give Facism a whril.

It's amazing to me how incredibly influencial such an exceedingly small percent of the US population has. What I'm confused about, is how it's morally justified to hate someone who has a "born" natural attraction to children or animals for it being so unnatural--yet it's a sin to be anti-gay. I'm not advocating any of those actions, but I'd like someone to explain to me how one is "better" than the other.

You are comparing homosexuality to pedophaeilia?

Don't measure which one is "better" by assigning (or deflecting) blame... that is rather a moot point when one considers the damage done.

I would think that ****ing five year olds is slightly more harmful than ****ing adults?

That's exactly my point. Morals are completely subjective. You can have gays march and preach about the evils of hate and discrimination on sexual preference, yet they'd just as soon lynch a pedophaeiliac.

Freedom is about being able to make your own choices about the world (and specifically) being able to voice them. While anarchy and total nihilism is a bad thing, this is just an attempt for a minority group to hamper the greatest US freedom and right. While it is justifiable to create laws that stop people from imposing physical harm (of any nature) on another, words are only as effective as the listener allows them to be. Any constraint on stating your own voice is Facism, pure and simple.

i dont think a bill like that is at all necessary...kerry just mentioned cheney's daughter and they tried to crucify him.