Only gay right is to die, says Ron Owen's sticker

[meegbear]

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6265878,00.jpg

GUN lobbyist Ron Owen has been told he is entitled to express his homophobic views, but that he went too far with the bumper sticker: "Gay Rights? Under God's law the only rights gays have is the right to die."

Queensland's Anti-Discrimination Tribunal found Mr Owen guilty of inciting hatred against homosexuals with the bumper sticker when he parked his car outside the Cooloola Shire Council officers in Gympie, north of Brisbane.

The publisher of the ultra-right-wing pro-militia magazine Lock Stock & Barrel and former local councillor was also chastised on Monday for comments he made in the ensuing public outcry that engulfed the rural community, The Australian reports.

The former president of the National Firearm Owners of Australia was taken to the tribunal by several local lesbians, who claimed they had been offended despite only one having seen the bumper sticker.

Two of the women were awarded $5000, with a third awarded $2500 in damages.

<snip>

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24393047-2,00.html

[hobbit709]

1. I have another Bible verse that Mr. Owen should heed

Matthew 7.1

[AndyA]

2. What a nice guy. I'm sure his God is pleased with him.

Hatred is not a Christian value. But then people like this guy aren't Christians.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. For many Christians, hatred is a core value

Otherwise, I would have no problem with so many Christian groups. And please don't pull out the "no true Christian" fallacy. :hi:

[AndyA]

6. If you are a true Christian, you DO NOT HATE. Period.

There is a difference between those who say they are Christians, and those who truly are. The people I know who I consider to be Christians do not hate others, they do not judge them, they just accept them.

Granted, these people are few and far between, but the people who promote hatred and intolerance don't fit the definition of a Christian, nor do they practice Christian beliefs.

It's important to understand that those who promote hatred as a core belief really aren't Christians, in spite of what they may profess to be. The distinction must be made.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. If you are a true Scotsman, you DO NOT PUT MILK IN YOUR OATMEAL. Period

You may wish to read the Wikipedia entry for "No True Scotsman."

[AndyA]

8. Religious beliefs are a very personal thing.

The people I know who I consider to be Christians do not hate.

Enough said.

[Occulus]

11. Do they believe in Christ as their lord and savior?

Then they're Christians- as much so as Fred Phelps or this jerk in the OP.

I'm very, very sorry, but this is one of the things that infuriates me the most about that religion: the disowning of problems created BY the religion. The Christian faith owns these people just as much as it owns the ones who work for charities, donate their time, and don't hate gay people, and it's about fucking time "real" Christians started owning up to that fact.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. And clearly, there are a lot of self-described Christians who DO hate

All I know is that I am not in a position to decide who is and who is not a Christian. As you said, religious beliefs are a very personal thing, and I'm not so arrogant as to assume that my beliefs are the definition of a "true" anything.

[ThomCat]

16. This stuff about "true christians" always bothers me

because it allows christians to keep being homophobic, learning and teaching and spreading homophobia in their churches and through their religion while claiming that their religion has no part in what is going on. Only saints are apparently true christians, so christianity is always faultless, even though all this hatred is perpetrated by people of intense faith because of their intense faith.

It is their christian doctrine that is teaching and validating this homophobia. Whether it's perfect or "true" christianity is beside the point. It is definitely real christianity.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. where in the leviticus does it say that?

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. The bumpersticker gives a perfectly valid reference

When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field to its very border, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner

No, that's Leviticus 19: 9-10. Just a second...

You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.

Oops, Leviticus 19:11. Maybe...

You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. You shall not go up and down as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand forth against the life of your neighbor.

Dang it, that's Leviticus 19:15-16. I'm getting warmer.... Ah! Here it is, Leviticus 20:13:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

[and-justice-for-all]

19. The babble can nothing about homosexual...

it just says "lies", there is no sexual reference there at all. It also says "Male" not man lies with a man as with a women; so it is very vague. It could men any type of male, like a male dog or a male horse.

The bible is not specific and was never meant to be taken literally. People who do take this bronze age desert dogma literally are fucked in the head.

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. "To lay with" means "have invalid sexual relations"

The actual Hebrew word is ShKV (the Hebrew alphabet is mostly consonants.) It is used pretty often in the Old Testament to mean "have invalid sexual relations," for example: incest (Genesis 19:30-35), rape (Genesis 34:1-2), bestiality (Leviticus 18:23), adultery (Deuteronomy 22:22) and temple prostitution (I Samuel 2:22.) In context, the meaning is pretty clear.

I agree with your evaluation, though. :hi:

[Fearless]

5. What about the seafood I ate last night?

Should I stone my sister for looking at a man? And so on...

Dear Mr. Jackass,

Go fuck yourself.

Sincerely,
NTF

[chiefofclarinet]

10. I would be nice if he actually READ Leviticus...

Leviticus, for those of you who haven't read it (it makes a good sleeping pill, but that's about it), is a LONG book of do's and don't's, written for a group of wandering nomads in the Arabian desert. Much of this is no longer relevant to modern Judaism, much less Christianity. Besides one or two solid statements of faith, it has little value anymore.

People like this always like to cherry-pick the statements they agree with, and ignore those that they don't. If he actually read the passage, three verses prior (Lev 20:10) says that anyone that sleeps with another psrson's spouse should be executed as well. Under that, most of the Republican party should be executed. We need to realize that this book had a different purpose back then. Since modern Christians ignore just about every law in this book now (all the cleanliness laws, rules about slaves, kosher food, etc.), Christians should not pick and choose the laws they like and only follow them.

[Amimnoch]

13. Well, technically Gays are not even in violation of that passage.

Hmmm, if the wording of the passage is:

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."

Since I'm gay, and i sleep with men in a completely different way than I'd sleep with a woman (I'd have sex with the man, would just be a slumber party with woman) that means that I'm not in violation of the precious passage he has chosen to focus on (ignoring the rest of course).

[Hugabear]

22. Don't forget the part about putting disobedient children to death

n/t

[sui generis]

14. what about Australian rights?

I guess those weren't mentioned in the babble.

:think:

hmmmm. am I gay first or American first? good thing we have a constitution that prattles about equal protections . . . .

[sakabatou]

15. I'm glad he got his ass handed to him

[MullenBank]

17. thoughtcrime?

ok i read this fast but.. you can get fined in Australia for the written content of a bumper sticker? 'cause its offensive? call bullshit on that.

the sticker writer is an asshat, of course.

goin to work now. bu bye.

[DarkTirade]

21. This isn't a 'thought crime', this is hate speech. Inciting possible violence, even.

Still not allowed to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.

[and-justice-for-all]

18. I like seeing justice..

especially with this bigot fuckwads.