US Hate preacher gets another gig cancelled

[Bob Blaylock]

The major reasons were you you didn't want to pay for the French wars which had secured your safety and you wanted to break the treaties with the tribes the British had made, so you could assuage your land greed.

If it is “hate” for me to tell the plain truth by pointing out that you're' a f•••ing liar; or to call violent, subhuman savages out for what they are, then surely it is hateful for you to keep repeating this absurd lie about my country. In fact, by the parameters which you seem to have established, even if your lies were true, it would still be “hate” for you to tell them.

So where the Hell do you get off accusing me of “hate”? Do something about the beam in your own eye before you complain about the mote that you think you see in my eye.

I suppose it's also “hate” to call out your blatant hypocrisy, here.

 

[mdk]

These threads always show whom actually supports business rights, individual rights, and, property rights from those that merely pay lip service out of political expedience.

The venues in question had already signed contracts to rent their facilities to this tremendous Theologian.

And now they are exercising their right to terminate said contract. Rev. Graham is free to take his business elsewhere.

 

[Polishprince]

These threads always show whom actually supports business rights, individual rights, and, property rights from those that merely pay lip service out of political expedience.

The venues in question had already signed contracts to rent their facilities to this tremendous Theologian.

And now they are exercising their right to terminate said contract. Rev. Graham is free to take his business elsewhere.

Well, that depends on what the contract says. I didn't see the document, this "right" may well not exist.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I don't think that there is any law, either in the US or the UK that requires people to enable anyone like graham. This bimbo can spread his hatred anywhere that he can find space to do so.

Unless there are legal reasons why contracts with Graham cannot be invalidated I've already said these places
Graham was dealing with have every right to not lend their space to him.

My only issue from the start has been a general one with the UK and their idea of what "free speech" really is.
It means letting all parties have a say and not silencing opinion because someone doesn't like what is being said.
There will always be someone who doesn't like what someone else says.
And because this is axiomatically true, everyone must be free to speak their mind
or we should let no voice an opinion at all.

Because in England's case they are the arbiter of what is permitted to be said
and that makes them authoritarians.

Banning speech under those circumstances is the same as censoring thought and in time England winds up like the authoritarians in Bejing.

I guess that's too nuanced and civilized for some people to comprehend however.

BTW: the cult people are seriously into denials of service in the US, even when it violates public-accommodation laws. The cults here collude all over the place.

Such as? Feel free to start a thread if you have a specific case in mind and aren't just venting in general.

Is there any reason why LGBTs shouldn't defend themselves against attacks? Is there any reason why any group shouldn't defend itself from attacks from outside?

No. Self defense is an important right for anyone.
Again, if you have something specific in mind, let people know.

 

[Lysistrata]

Why is it "colluding"? The people who operate these venues and the communities that they operate him may have simply discovered what he was.

They all discovered who Franklin Graham was at approximately the precise same time it seems.

If these venues are interested in protecting the ears and minds of their town folk then they should find out who these dangerous people are before agreeing to letting these evil monsters speak.

I don't know what the law is in the UK, but in the U.S. only the government is on the hook for a denial of free speech. It appears that your graham can speak anywhere that he can a room.

I doubt Graham will be able to
obtain a venue that accommodates more than a handful of people in the UK.
It's a nation of snowflakes now.

By your reasoning, the cult people are colluding against LGBTs.

No more than LGBTs "collude" against cult people, whoever that is. It's mutual dislike.
This is different than the Graham situation.

This collusion of Graham is signified by orchestrated and coordinated denial of service. Kind of like "we don't serve your kind" messages to certain types of people when they come to town.

I don't think that there is any law, either in the US or the UK that requires people to enable anyone like graham. This bimbo can spread his hatred anywhere that he can find space to do so.

BTW: the cult people are seriously into denials of service in the US, even when it violates public-accommodation laws. The cults here collude all over the place.

Is there any reason why LGBTs shouldn't defend themselves against attacks? Is there any reason why any group shouldn't defend itself from attacks from outside?

What "attacks" has Rev. Graham made against Homosexuals at all?

All that the great Preacher has done is to repeat the biblical prohibition against men taking it in the Caboose. He hasn't promoted the idea of attacking anyone.

You might not like it, but Homosexuals are not sacred cows exempt from criticism.

Neither are people in religious cults.The bible is only of consequence for certain Christians, particularly those who take it as inerrant and infallible, and who cherry-pick what they like from it. Many people, heterosexuals and LGBTs alike, Christians and non-Christians alike, do not believe in this viewpoint. I am a heterosexual who believes that sexual orientation is innate, and I have had several conversations with gay male friends which confirmed this. Sexual orientation is not a "choice," which I can attest to, having never made such a choice myself. I never made any choice as to which gender attracted me. I never even thought about it.

 

[mdk]

These threads always show whom actually supports business rights, individual rights, and, property rights from those that merely pay lip service out of political expedience.

The venues in question had already signed contracts to rent their facilities to this tremendous Theologian.

And now they are exercising their right to terminate said contract. Rev. Graham is free to take his business elsewhere.

Well, that depends on what the contract says. I didn't see the document, this "right" may well not exist.

My guess is these venues likely have all their legal bases covered and Rev Graham will just have to find another venue that is willing to accommodate him. It would be quite funny to see him sue b/c he feels discriminated aganist all the while supporting businesses that do, so long as it's not aganist him and people he supports.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

These threads always show whom actually supports business rights, individual rights, and, property rights from those that merely pay lip service out of political expedience.

Exactly. So I guess you have come out of the closet on the side of the cake maker who wouldn't be bullied into providing a service to a couple of gays because it violated his personal rights?
Good to know.

 

[Polishprince]

Why is it "colluding"? The people who operate these venues and the communities that they operate him may have simply discovered what he was.

They all discovered who Franklin Graham was at approximately the precise same time it seems.

If these venues are interested in protecting the ears and minds of their town folk then they should find out who these dangerous people are before agreeing to letting these evil monsters speak.

I don't know what the law is in the UK, but in the U.S. only the government is on the hook for a denial of free speech. It appears that your graham can speak anywhere that he can a room.

I doubt Graham will be able to
obtain a venue that accommodates more than a handful of people in the UK.
It's a nation of snowflakes now.

By your reasoning, the cult people are colluding against LGBTs.

No more than LGBTs "collude" against cult people, whoever that is. It's mutual dislike.
This is different than the Graham situation.

This collusion of Graham is signified by orchestrated and coordinated denial of service. Kind of like "we don't serve your kind" messages to certain types of people when they come to town.

I don't think that there is any law, either in the US or the UK that requires people to enable anyone like graham. This bimbo can spread his hatred anywhere that he can find space to do so.

BTW: the cult people are seriously into denials of service in the US, even when it violates public-accommodation laws. The cults here collude all over the place.

Is there any reason why LGBTs shouldn't defend themselves against attacks? Is there any reason why any group shouldn't defend itself from attacks from outside?

What "attacks" has Rev. Graham made against Homosexuals at all?

All that the great Preacher has done is to repeat the biblical prohibition against men taking it in the Caboose. He hasn't promoted the idea of attacking anyone.

You might not like it, but Homosexuals are not sacred cows exempt from criticism.

Neither are people in religious cults.The bible is only of consequence for certain Christians, particularly those who take it as inerrant and infallible, and who cherry-pick what they like from it. Many people, heterosexuals and LGBTs alike, Christians and non-Christians alike, do not believe in this viewpoint. I am a heterosexual who believes that sexual orientation is innate, and I have had several conversations with gay male friends which confirmed this. Sexual orientation is not a "choice," which I can attest to, having never made such a choice myself. I never made any choice as to which gender attracted me. I never even thought about it.

I disagree with this completely. Men exercise their own free will when they choose to take it in the ass. No one is forced to give up their manhoods, they do so voluntarily.

Have you ever seen the video online "Boys Beware"? Great educational films for young people, shows how homosexuals recruit

 

[Anathema]

I dont know why we are letting this freak into the country.

You’re absolutely right... I mean who would want to put their lives in danger... I hear the Brits literally explode when confronted with Decency, Propriety, and (most importantly) Morality.

 

[MAGAman]

Not many things please a Fascist more than silencing those they disagree with.

Since they can't win a debate on ideas, its their best option.

I wonder if Pelosi is praying for any real Christians today.

 

[mdk]

These threads always show whom actually supports business rights, individual rights, and, property rights from those that merely pay lip service out of political expedience.

Exactly. So I guess you have come out of the closet on the side of the cake maker who wouldn't be bullied into providing a service to a couple of gays because it violated his personal rights?
Good to know.

I have and on numerous occasions. My opposition to public accommodation laws are not some grand secret around here. I think a business should have the right to refuse service for *any reason* they see fit. It's always amusing watching the same people flip and flop on these issues the second they feel discriminated aganist, but I am not one to wipe my ass with my principles so easily.

 

[Anathema]

These places cant be expected to have in depth knowledge of US preachers. he isnt well known over here. When his schtick became known they dumped him straight away. I expect all the other venues to do the same.

His form of extremism is not popular over here, Or in the US either.

His form of extremism is far more popular over here than you want to think about. It’s not popular over there because as I said above, Morality and Decency appear to be fatal to Brits and European citizens alike.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I have and on numerous occasions. My opposition to public accommodation laws are not some grand secret around here. I think a business should have the right to refuse service for *any reason* they see fit. It's always amusing watching the same people flip and flop on these issues the second they feel discriminated aganist, but I am not one to wipe my ass with my principles so easily.

Well this is all enlightening stuff and conversely, I have come out here and elsewhere supporting the right of business owners to refuse to serve Franklin Graham though since seven venues agreed to rent to him and then they all later
changed their minds in unison one can't help but wonder about coercion and intimidation against them.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

[

Franklin Graham has never said anything hateful. Liberals lie.

You have probably never heard anything he has said, he loves Trump so you love him.

And you automatically hate him for the same reason.

Anti-Christians gonna hate.

Come on MAWA Man, anyone who doesn't agree with that right wing, racist philosophy is anti-American, anti-Christian, blah, blah, blah. Who died and told you dumb asses that you define who is Christian or American.

 

[mdk]

I have and on numerous occasions. My opposition to public accommodation laws are not some grand secret around here. I think a business should have the right to refuse service for *any reason* they see fit. It's always amusing watching the same people flip and flop on these issues the second they feel discriminated aganist, but I am not one to wipe my ass with my principles so easily.

Well this is all enlightening stuff and conversely, I have come out here and elsewhere supporting the right of business owners to refuse to serve Franklin Graham though since seven venues agreed to rent to him and then they all later
changed their minds in unison one can't help but wonder about coercion and intimidation against them.

Good, I'm glad to have another ally that supports property and business rights. There are too few of us that actually do.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

No real christian would support trump.

Batshit crazy Evangelicals on the other hand...

Oh the piety.

Is anybody in that picture not a multi millionaire ?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Why is it "colluding"? The people who operate these venues and the communities that they operate him may have simply discovered what he was.

They all discovered who Franklin Graham was at approximately the precise same time it seems.

If these venues are interested in protecting the ears and minds of their town folk then they should find out who these dangerous people are before agreeing to letting these evil monsters speak.

I don't know what the law is in the UK, but in the U.S. only the government is on the hook for a denial of free speech. It appears that your graham can speak anywhere that he can a room.

I doubt Graham will be able to
obtain a venue that accommodates more than a handful of people in the UK.
It's a nation of snowflakes now.

By your reasoning, the cult people are colluding against LGBTs.

No more than LGBTs "collude" against cult people, whoever that is. It's mutual dislike.
This is different than the Graham situation.

This collusion of Graham is signified by orchestrated and coordinated denial of service. Kind of like "we don't serve your kind" messages to certain types of people when they come to town.

I don't think that there is any law, either in the US or the UK that requires people to enable anyone like graham. This bimbo can spread his hatred anywhere that he can find space to do so.

BTW: the cult people are seriously into denials of service in the US, even when it violates public-accommodation laws. The cults here collude all over the place.

Is there any reason why LGBTs shouldn't defend themselves against attacks? Is there any reason why any group shouldn't defend itself from attacks from outside?

What "attacks" has Rev. Graham made against Homosexuals at all?

All that the great Preacher has done is to repeat the biblical prohibition against men taking it in the Caboose. He hasn't promoted the idea of attacking anyone.

You might not like it, but Homosexuals are not sacred cows exempt from criticism.

Neither are people in religious cults.The bible is only of consequence for certain Christians, particularly those who take it as inerrant and infallible, and who cherry-pick what they like from it. Many people, heterosexuals and LGBTs alike, Christians and non-Christians alike, do not believe in this viewpoint. I am a heterosexual who believes that sexual orientation is innate, and I have had several conversations with gay male friends which confirmed this. Sexual orientation is not a "choice," which I can attest to, having never made such a choice myself. I never made any choice as to which gender attracted me. I never even thought about it.

Sexual orientation is not a choice. Neither is pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality or sadism. Jeffrey Dahmer had no choice in his compulsion to eat human flesh. Homosexuality is a compulsion not a choice.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I have and on numerous occasions. My opposition to public accommodation laws are not some grand secret around here. I think a business should have the right to refuse service for *any reason* they see fit. It's always amusing watching the same people flip and flop on these issues the second they feel discriminated aganist, but I am not one to wipe my ass with my principles so easily.

I am a business owner, and I support public accommodation laws. If I have something to sell, I do not discriminate.

In the case of bakers, photographers, etc. I don't see it as an issue of accommodation, since they are being asked to CREATE something for an occasion rather than sell something already existing. While I don't think they should refuse service to a person simply because they suspect they are gay, I do think they have the right to refuse participation in an event of which they do not approve.

 

[Anathema]

Sexual orientation is not a choice. Neither is pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality or sadism. Jeffrey Dahmer had no choice in his compulsion to eat human flesh. Homosexuality is a compulsion not a choice.

ACTING on those compulsions is most definitely a choice. I feel significant compulsions to do extremely unpleasant things to people on a daily basis. I work very hard to choose not to act on those compulsions each and every day.

 

[mdk]

I have and on numerous occasions. My opposition to public accommodation laws are not some grand secret around here. I think a business should have the right to refuse service for *any reason* they see fit. It's always amusing watching the same people flip and flop on these issues the second they feel discriminated aganist, but I am not one to wipe my ass with my principles so easily.

I am a business owner, and I support public accommodation laws. If I have something to sell, I do not discriminate.

In the case of bakers, photographers, etc. I don't see it as an issue of accommodation, since they are being asked to CREATE something for an occasion rather than sell something already existing. While I don't think they should refuse service to a person simply because they suspect they are gay, I do think they have the right to refuse participation in an event of which they do not approve.

I would never run my business in such a fashion, but people should be free to do so without the government's hammer being brought down upon their head. The government should not be forcing people to do business or associate with each other aganist their wishes.