UK's biggest welfare family have another baby

[Kath]

The law specifically states that hate speech is speech intended to incite hatred towards a particular race, religion or sexual preference.

The door is open. It will not stay being just race/religion/sexual orientation. Other groups will grab onto this and run until every perceived offense is illegal. AKA: "Why is it illegal to incite violence towards gay people, but not soldiers? That dude out there is telling people that soldiers are the reason we have gay people."

Why is "gay people suck," more hateful then "chefs suck?"

In this country, it is okay for batshit crazy Christians to scream atrocities at the families of dead soldiers. They do have to do it from a certain distance, though. They can't do it graveside. I think they are vile humans. All but 40 people in this country think they are vile humans. We don't want them in prison.

[Montegriffo]

The law specifically states that hate speech is speech intended to incite hatred towards a particular race, religion or sexual preference.

The door is open. It will not stay being just race/religion/sexual orientation. Other groups will grab onto this and run until every perceived offense is illegal. AKA: "Why is it illegal to incite violence towards gay people, but not soldiers? That dude out there is telling people that soldiers are the reason we have gay people."

Why is "gay people suck," more hateful then "chefs suck?"

In this country, it is okay for batshit crazy Christians to scream atrocities at the families of dead soldiers. They do have to do it from a certain distance, though. They can't do it graveside. I think they are vile humans. All but 40 people in this country think they are vile humans. We don't want them in prison.

The ''thin edge of the wedge'' argument is often used to attack reasonable legislation. To me, it is countered by ''don't let perfect become the enemy of good''.
Gays have a long history of persecution and discrimination against them, chefs not so much.

Personally, I would fine the fuck out of those vile humans from the Westboro Baptist Church. Once they realised that they were on the way to bankruptcy they might be less inclined to be so vile.

Ps. Those sound like restrictions on their freedom of speech, something I was told means you have no freedom of speech.

[Kath]

Ps. Those sound like restrictions on their freedom of speech, something I was told means you have no freedom of speech.

My right of free speech doesn't come with a right to a venue.

[Montegriffo]

Ps. Those sound like restrictions on their freedom of speech, something I was told means you have no freedom of speech.

My right of free speech doesn't come with a right to a venue.

Sounds like a restriction on free speech to me.

[Speaker to Animals]

The law specifically states that hate speech is speech intended to incite hatred towards a particular race, religion or sexual preference.

The door is open. It will not stay being just race/religion/sexual orientation. Other groups will grab onto this and run until every perceived offense is illegal. AKA: "Why is it illegal to incite violence towards gay people, but not soldiers? That dude out there is telling people that soldiers are the reason we have gay people."

Why is "gay people suck," more hateful then "chefs suck?"

In this country, it is okay for batshit crazy Christians to scream atrocities at the families of dead soldiers. They do have to do it from a certain distance, though. They can't do it graveside. I think they are vile humans. All but 40 people in this country think they are vile humans. We don't want them in prison.

The ''thin edge of the wedge'' argument is often used to attack reasonable legislation. To me, it is countered by ''don't let perfect become the enemy of good''.
Gays have a long history of persecution and discrimination against them, chefs not so much.

Personally, I would fine the fuck out of those vile humans from the Westboro Baptist Church. Once they realised that they were on the way to bankruptcy they might be less inclined to be so vile.

Ps. Those sound like restrictions on their freedom of speech, something I was told means you have no freedom of speech.

You have a terrible argument. Protective legislation centered around identity is an anathema.

That which blasphemy laws (and that is exactly what you defend) protect relates to the god of that civilization.

You made it illegal to say the word nigger but blaspheming against Christ is okay. It's illegal to criticize Islam but Christianity is open season.

This really is a religious war. The true God against your god of modernism.

[Speaker to Animals]

People are trying to do it here too.



Posting that ^^^ on Facebook can cost your entire livelihood in America.



A gay man kicking a Christian woman and sending her to the hospital.. no charges.

[Speaker to Animals]

Laws that protect only people of a certain identity are fucking poison.

And people like you constantly counter-signal anybody who dares to mention that whites might have collective interests, or that white identity doesn't exist. But then you defend nonstop persecution of the very ethnicity you say doesn't exist.

[Montegriffo]

The door is open. It will not stay being just race/religion/sexual orientation. Other groups will grab onto this and run until every perceived offense is illegal. AKA: "Why is it illegal to incite violence towards gay people, but not soldiers? That dude out there is telling people that soldiers are the reason we have gay people."

Why is "gay people suck," more hateful then "chefs suck?"

In this country, it is okay for batshit crazy Christians to scream atrocities at the families of dead soldiers. They do have to do it from a certain distance, though. They can't do it graveside. I think they are vile humans. All but 40 people in this country think they are vile humans. We don't want them in prison.

The ''thin edge of the wedge'' argument is often used to attack reasonable legislation. To me, it is countered by ''don't let perfect become the enemy of good''.
Gays have a long history of persecution and discrimination against them, chefs not so much.

Personally, I would fine the fuck out of those vile humans from the Westboro Baptist Church. Once they realised that they were on the way to bankruptcy they might be less inclined to be so vile.

Ps. Those sound like restrictions on their freedom of speech, something I was told means you have no freedom of speech.

You have a terrible argument. Protective legislation centered around identity is an anathema.

That which blasphemy laws (and that is exactly what you defend) protect relates to the god of that civilization.

You made it illegal to say the word nigger but blaspheming against Christ is okay. It's illegal to criticize Islam but Christianity is open season.

This really is a religious war. The true God against your god of modernism.

Which part of ''hatred towards someone because of their religion'' makes you think Christianity is exempt?

Ps. Criticism is not the same as hatred.
It is perfectly legal to criticise Islam but inciting hatred towards Muslims is not.

Another common misconception about UK hate speech laws.

[Speaker to Animals]

The ''thin edge of the wedge'' argument is often used to attack reasonable legislation. To me, it is countered by ''don't let perfect become the enemy of good''.
Gays have a long history of persecution and discrimination against them, chefs not so much.

Personally, I would fine the fuck out of those vile humans from the Westboro Baptist Church. Once they realised that they were on the way to bankruptcy they might be less inclined to be so vile.

Ps. Those sound like restrictions on their freedom of speech, something I was told means you have no freedom of speech.

You have a terrible argument. Protective legislation centered around identity is an anathema.

That which blasphemy laws (and that is exactly what you defend) protect relates to the god of that civilization.

You made it illegal to say the word nigger but blaspheming against Christ is okay. It's illegal to criticize Islam but Christianity is open season.

This really is a religious war. The true God against your god of modernism.

Which part of ''hatred towards someone because of their religion'' makes you think Christianity is exempt?

Ps. Criticism is not the same as hatred.
It is perfectly legal to criticise Islam but inciting hatred towards Muslims is not.

Another common misconception about UK hate speech laws.

If you were honest, you'd turn yourself in for posting endless hate speech against Christians on this very forum, Monty. Are you fucking high??

[Montegriffo]

Again, criticism is not hatred.
Stop playing your victim card or you will wear it out.