Christianity poll for research paper?

Question

If a Christian were to voice disapproval over someones sexual orientation, is it considered hate? If someone voices disapproval over a Christian viewpoint, is it protected under the Bill of Rights? Why?
Serious answers please, this is for a college research paper.

I am researching Christian based hate crimes in the US, recently a 75 year old woman was arrested and charged with a hate crime for holding up a Truth sign at a gay rights protest. Did she commit a hate crime? Or was she practicing free speech?

Answer 1

If a Christian voices disapproval over someone's sexual orientation, it isn't hate. You are only saying that you do not condone the way they are living for whatever reasons.

Likewise, if someone voices disapproval over a Christian viewpoint, it is also not hate. They just do not agree with you.

It becomes hate when you try to control another person's lifestyle through harrasment, obstruction of their lifestyle choice, or abusive behaviours.

Answer 2

Either you are lying about the 75 year old woman or she did more than just hold up a sign. To be charged with a hate crime, there has to actually be crime!

To answer your questions, yes it is hateful to voice disapproval over someone's sexual orientation, because sexual orientation is not a choice, it is something you are born with (a growing number of scientific studies back this up). It would be equally hateful to voice disapproval over someone's race! However, such statements would not be crimes, and would be protected by the first amendment.

Disagreeing with a religious viewpoint, Christian or otherwise, is also protected under the Bill of Rights. It could be hateful, depending on what you say and how you say it, but simply stating that Christianity (Judaism, or Buddism...) is false is not intrinsically hateful. If it is, than everyone on earth is guilty of this form of hate, since everyone disagrees with most or all other religions out there!

Answer 3

If someone were to voice disapproval for the color of someone skin, is it hate? If the answer is yes (and we all know that in a modern world, it IS considered hate), then you have your answer.

Its the same thing, only for a different reason.

Sexual orientation is not a choice, it is something innate in genetics. Usually it begins to be shown at a very young age. Like a boy enjoying wearing girls dresses.

Most homosexuals will tell you that they never liked their opposite sex, and that they always felt attracted to those of the same sex.

In the 70's and 80's, it wasn't uncommon to see homosexuals be beat up or even killed for their orientation. Before that it was something hidden but history shows us that they were usually killed, or even tortured, by the local population once it was discovered.

As for voicing disapproval over a Christian viewpoint, Christians don't rule the world, they just think they do. Voicing disapproval is quite different from active discrimination against them (even though they actively discriminate against others), and freedom of speech is guaranteed under the American Constitution (if you're American) and anyone that doesn't live there or isn't a citizen doesn't care whether you don't like what they have to say or not because there's nothing you can do about it.

Incidentally, freedom of speech is guaranteed in Canada too.

And that IS a right that is protected by law. Christians do not have the right to treat others, whose sexual orientation they dislike, as though they are less than human.

Answer 4

"If a Christian were to voice disapproval over someones sexual orientation, is it considered hate?"
If they voice their disapproval IN THE FORM OF HATE, yes. In the case of hatespeech as a legal entity, there are distinct criteria.

"If someone voices disapproval over a Christian viewpoint, is it protected under the Bill of Rights?"
They have the right to say anything, but there is no guarantee of being published, recorded and played back or having what they say considered fairly. You have free speech, but no guarantee to have what you say be considered valid.

Remember, also, that there is no "right to free speech" on Yahoo. They, a private company, can censor whoever they want.

Answer 5

There's no reason that it shouldn't be free speech, we don't have mind control yet do we ? The big thing missing is common sense, although I oppose homosexuality, I shouldn't be able to speak out when in a position to start a riot. (nor do I feel hatred for those I disagree with).

Additionally; I don't go with the hate crime concept.. Enforce the laws and a crime is a crime, if the crime is more heinous because the perpetrator was racial motives, the punishment should be more severe regardless of the motivation. "Hate crime" terminology reaffirms discrimination.

Answer 6

1. no. the ones who want to reduce the population to 250,000 people total on earth are the ones you really need to watch out for. I have always wondered what kind of violent plan they would have to accomplish their objective.

The key idea here is that it does not harm the person. How is my stating an opinion that with homosexuality is against God's instruction to "go forth and multiply" - hate speech? Homosexuals can't do that (naturally).

2. There is religious freedom within the USA, and would in theory be protected under the Bill of Rights. There is a compelling argument that freedom of speech only applies to political speech, however.

I disagree with political speech being the only protected speech. If we have religious freedom (one of the main concepts the USA was founded on), then freedom of speech logically applies here also. I feel it goes the other way too. If you (or anyone else) feels the need to state their opinion, then good for them. I'm not trying to hinder anyones rights, and I certainly don't want mine hindered either!

Answer 7

I agree with universal pants. Hate speach implies that you disapprove of another's behavior to the point the person feels they maybe physically harmed.
To tell someone you disapprove of their behavior is free speach as long as it is done without physical intent. We have all had our feelings hurt by others so why should sexual orientation have it over the rest of the world with protection against comments that hurt ones feelings. It shouldn't matter if you are Christian or not. We all should have free speach in the United States of America.

Answer 8

Um, voicing disapproval over ANY belief system any person has is covered in FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
Sexual preference and religious affiliation are BOTH a
part of a person's "identity" (self proclaimed identity, but identity none-the-less) - freedom of speech is a GREAT asset - even if someone thinks that a person's
color is spiritually significant somehow (which I don't) and
that person speaks about it - they are free to speak about
it peacefully as long as the person does not do physical
or financial harm to an individual that is covered in other
laws. Also, there is a problem with speaking out about
others to malign their reputation - that is not covered
under freedom of speech. Ideas not directed at any
particular individual are definitely freedom of speech.
I guess you could argue that if someone speaks against
a belief system of a certain group of individuals, then
some discrimination could occur such as in hiring,
renting apartments, and other opportunities in society, (even if it is not obvious that they are being discriminated against) - the only solution is just to be able to bring the multitude of opinions to the table to debate them. That is still better than quieting individuals and ultimately possibly quieting any truths that could arise that may go against society but still be true and found to be so someday!

I hope that helped!
Freedom of speech is very necessary!

The example you gave I would definitely consider
freedom of speech!

I am a Christian and I don't dislike/hate people who are
gay, but I think one's sexual preference (notice I
don't use the word sexual orientation) is from
a multutude of reasons.
I have actually known ppl to become hetero b/c
of spiritual implications and the sanctity of
marriage in our belief system (and the ppl were also
much happier because of it for real).
The problems are REAL both for our society and
for the individuals - just as the problems of
pre-marital and extra-marital sex are REAL!

All of these problems were started by the sexual revolution -
it has gotten SO bad that life is not held to be as
valuable in and of itself as it should be - that sex
is so honored that abortion is overlooked in it's moral implication as partly the result of it!

Also, a thing that is really troubling to me is the situation/idea
I heard about a gay couple wanting to rent a church property for a civil ceremony or wedding, but it goes against the churches teaching... - The chruch Should Not have to rent it! It would definitely infringe upon the rights of the church!
I heard something like this occured recently - that a church
was sued.


Root of problem: In SEX we trust!
It is all the SAME problem (including divorce rates
of heterosexual couples).

It is really about selfishness - we need to get back
as quickly as possible to Unalienable Rights endowed by
the Creator - the first and most important of those
being life! It's all about having the right priorities.

Answer 9

I think a simple difference between hate and free speech may something like this . . .

If you say, "I hate . . . blacks, women, Muslims, Christians, Gays, etc. . . . " In your own front yard, or even in front of the post office, or a permitted public rally . . . it's free speech. The White Power groups do this, for example.

Now, if you go to where those people are gathered, and say that, it's considered a hate crime -- your freedom of speech is limited by where you're standing.

Or, as the Supreme Court ruled, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Answer 10

Disapproval is not hate speech. Implying harm to those one disapproves of is hate speech.

Disapproval, whether over sexual orientation or religious choice, is free speech. Implying harm is hate speech, threatening harm in my state) is a terroristic threat.