The Coral Ridge Hour - Hate Crime Examples

[dwarrren9]

The only good thing about Coral Ridge Presbyterian church is their pipe organ. That is why I will never ever see myself at one of these mega churches. I will never go to a church who will prevent me from being proud of who I am. Shame on Coral Ridge!

[Mutedvox]

ADL and tony perkins are hate merchants for the evangelical movement. they're just using this "hate crime" issue to force their brand of intolerance and prejudice down the throats of the people. hiding behind the bible only re-enforces their cowardice.

[sammyseattle]

I find it interesting that these types of groups always gloss over the fact that hate crimes laws are currently in existence and protect these very people, however they work tirelessly to extend these same protections to others.

[Chuichupachichi]

Hate crime laws are in existence because homo. activists and other leftists pursued them. Prior to that, laws had always been made from the mindset of that they were for society in general. Hate crimes are made with a particular group in mind. They don't protect "these very people" as you said. If the man in the video were murdered, being a white, male heterosexual, it would be considered a crime but not a "hate" crime. The ridiculousness is uncovered when one asks, which crimes are out of love?

[sammyseattle]

Your ignorance of the existing hate crimes legislation is astounding. Federal hate crimes laws have been in existence since 1969 based upon race, color, religion or national origin.

[Chuichupachichi]

You show me one law from 1969 - 70's which makes the punishment for a crime committed against a black different than the punishment for the same crime when committed against a white. Or one making the punishment for a crime against a Hindu different than the punishment for same crime against a Catholic. Even just a law causing that if any crime is committed against a Hindu, its automatically claimed that the crime was committed simply because the victim was Hindu, as its done for gays.

[KasparHauser4]

Isn't it pitiful that the church is fighting for it's "right" to hate?

[Chuichupachichi]

Its pitiful that in your corrupted mind you perceive it as such. In Canada, a pastor has already been dragged into court. The judge ruled in favor of the homosexuals. In this country homosexuals are working towards the same ends. Considering the 1st amendment - "or prohibiting the practice thereof". Such a thing as what took place in Canada would clearly be a violation of what the founders from the "Bible Congress" constituted. This demonstrates that the real haters & intolerant ones are HOMOS!

[sammyseattle]

It is pitiful that you can't seem to understand that we are not subject to the laws of Canada, and yet that is the what you and yours always cite as an argument. All of your arguments are based upon exclusiveness and divisiveness, the very foundation of intolerance.

[Chuichupachichi]

Your supposed to take off your shirt before you tie-dye it. The fumes are getting to you. Understand this, we're not subject to the laws of Canada. But we have been and can be further subjected to the homosexual agenda. Of which, they have already in the past, brought up the topic of legislating "hate speech" here. The fact that its been circulated in the air is indicative of that its certainly part of their agenda for the U.S.

As Mr.T would say -

"I pity the fool who trusts the homo agenda"

[SoCalAtheist]

One can disagree with the lifestyle of another without discriminating against them. This entire video is a promotion of religiously base bigotry.

You don't like the lifestyles of gays and lesbians, fine. But do not use your dislike for their lifestyles as a reason to discriminate them. That's just immoral.

[Chuichupachichi]

(One can disagree with the lifestyle of another without discriminating against them)

You liberals always sound reasonable in theory. However, in the real world or in practice that is, one cannot even merely disagree with the lifestyle of the homosexuals. Being that the moment in which one does, he is instantly labeled as "intolerant", "bigoted" and "homophobic". You yourself have proved my case. This video contains no bigotry. Why don't you instead, directly address whats been said with reason?

[SoCalAtheist]

If you're calling for the limitation of rights because of your dislike of a persons lifestyle then you are intolerant and bigoted.

Here's a test for intolerance and bigotry. Substitute "black" or "hispanic" or "asian" for "gay" or "lesbian". If it sounds at all intolerant or bigoted with the substitutions, then it is intolerant or bigoted.

If a person refused to take pictures of an hispanic couple because of their "religious" views about hispanics, would you claim that they were not a bigot?

[Chuichupachichi]

Though you addressed none of what I said, I'll take your silly test. WTF, Im a good tester anyhow?

I did the substitutions and I ended up with a gay Asian guy, a lesbian Hispanic girl, and Rupaul!

So what did that prove? That a guy born gay got his 1st A+ in math & 3 car wrecks in the same day so he became Asian?

A girl born lesbian started eating tacos so she became an Illegal Lesbian Alien?

Mean Joe Green got a job at Victoria's Secret & got employee discounts that he couldn't resist?

[SoCalAtheist]

You got a "gay asian guy" from that? You do understand the difference between substitution and addition don't you? Try it again.

[Chuichupachichi]

I didn't get a gay Asian guy from anything. I don't swing like that. Thats your gig. I understand the difference between a womans front side and a mans back side. I understand that the former isn't correctly substituted with the latter. Also, that no matter how many additional ones of the latter you compile, they'll never equate to even one of the former. Especially if the latter try monologuing. They're just not good monologuers. They're simply only loggers and hot doggers

[Chuichupachichi]

(If a person refused to take photos of a Hispanic couple because of his "religious" views about Hispanics, would you claim that he is not a bigot?)

Hell yes! I wouldn't say the photographer is a bigot. I'd say that when he's not taking, or refusing to take, pictures. He's the Aztec High Priest. They love killing tons of Mexicans!

Either that, or he's a very inquisitive Bishop. There were Hispanic Jews. Have you never heard of Shimon Perez?

Do you know if he refuses to photograph Bar Mitzvahs?