Are LGBT groups and their lobbyists making inappropriate statements?

rowdytiger13 said:I don't see any of this in the activists' statements: "...with the intent to spread racial, religious, sexual, national, ethnic hatred, or skin color or sexual orientation-based hate, or to disparage, publicly express or convey notions of superiority or inferiority regarding race, ethnicity, religion, gender, nation, or notions of superiority or inferiority based on skin color, sexual orientation, or other traits..."
I think there's a real shot at a defamation lawsuit here, which is probably what she's aiming for.
The tricky part is that you actually have to prove defamation in court, and once that starts, all sorts of things can come to light—plus, there's always the chance it doesn't even qualify as defamation.
So, my gut says this isn't going to lead to anything.

So, how would you describe that statement?

The initiative is a group formed specifically to incite hatred against LGBTQ+ people.

And how would you label calling people clerical fascists or "cathotalibans"?

In everything those activists said, I found all of the bolded parts.

Casey Mitchell72 said:So, how would you describe that statement?

The initiative is a group formed specifically to incite hatred against LGBTQ+ people.

And how would you label calling people clerical fascists or "cathotalibans"?

In everything those activists said, I found all of the bolded parts.

I agree with the sentiment, and if Željka Markić tries to push this through the courts as hate speech, well, good luck to her.
Calling someone a clerical fascist or a Catholic Taliban is an insult; it might be hate speech, or it might not, but it’s definitely an insult. It's the same deal with slurs—that's an insult too (even if we don't need to get into that right now). Basically, both could be sued as insults, though whether they qualify as hate speech on their own is debatable.
Whereas saying something like "kill the [slur]" or "kill the Catholic Taliban" is clearly hate speech.

rowdytiger13 said:I agree with the sentiment, and if Željka Markić tries to push this through the courts as hate speech, well, good luck to her.
Calling someone a clerical fascist or a Catholic Taliban is an insult; it might be hate speech, or it might not, but it’s definitely an insult. It's the same deal with slurs—that's an insult too (even if we don't need to get into that right now). Basically, both could be sued as insults, though whether they qualify as hate speech on their own is debatable.
Whereas saying something like "kill the [slur]" or "kill the Catholic Taliban" is clearly hate speech.

As far as I can tell, Željka Markić has never called for anything like "kill the faggot."

In our culture, "faggot" is an insult just like any other racial slur. People have lost their heads over being called those names in the past. No one is claiming that one specific slur is different from another when people start swinging punches—when the insults start flying, nobody is picking and choosing which ones hurt more.

That's just how it is.

"Clerical fascist" or "Catholic fanatic" are the exact same kind of insults. So why isn't that kind of verbal attack treated with the same weight?

Jack Cook7 said:As far as I can tell, Željka Markić has never called for anything like "kill the faggot."

In our culture, "faggot" is an insult just like any other racial slur. People have lost their heads over being called those names in the past. No one is claiming that one specific slur is different from another when people start swinging punches—when the insults start flying, nobody is picking and choosing which ones hurt more.

That's just how it is.

"Clerical fascist" or "Catholic fanatic" are the exact same kind of insults. So why isn't that kind of verbal attack treated with the same weight?

Well, it is treated that way.
There are plenty of examples where people are publicly insulted with both terms, but nothing happens because nobody bothers to sue.
If someone calls you a clerical fascist in public, you have the right to sue for defamation, just like I would if someone called me a "[slur]."
But then again, no one is going to step up and file a lawsuit on your behalf, or mine.

Why does everyone insist on making the work and struggle of the "In the Name of the Family" initiative all about one person?
The lawsuit wasn't filed by Željko Marti personally, but by the association she leads; therefore, we shouldn't be talking about this legal action as if it were her private vendetta rather than the organization's collective effort.

rowdytiger13 said:Well, it is treated that way.
There are plenty of examples where people are publicly insulted with both terms, but nothing happens because nobody bothers to sue.
If someone calls you a clerical fascist in public, you have the right to sue for defamation, just like I would if someone called me a "[slur]."
But then again, no one is going to step up and file a lawsuit on your behalf, or mine.

Look, I don't have any beef with LGBTQ+ folks, gypsies, aliens, or anyone else, really.

What gets a little exhausting for me is when these super aggressive activist groups claim they have the authority to speak for everyone just because they’ve branded themselves as the "representatives" of some marginalized group. But wait—they’re the ones who defined that group in the first place! So, the second anyone questions their stance, they pull the ultimate card and claim it's a fundamental human rights violation. It’s wild. They basically act like they are their own ultimate proof that they're right and entitled to demand absolutely anything.

Honestly, it reminds me of those old Greek myths where Zeus just birthed all his offspring and every single one of his problems straight out of his own head. Like, every single Greek god just popped everything they needed right out of their own skulls.

So, if we call someone a communist, does that count as hate speech? 🤔

Or if we call them fascists when we actually have the receipts to prove it—is that also hate speech? 🤔

brightheron64 said:The moderator deleted my post, but I really feel like I owe you a proper response...

So, what I was getting at was... I suppose I should start by saying that sometimes, one simply finds themselves lost in thought, drifting through ideas without much of a destination in mind... There’s a certain thing that many people here haven't actually lived through, even though they seem so eager to jump in and share their opinions on it...

I wanted to mention that instead of... We all carry a bit of that old leader's legacy within us... It doesn't really call for something like... In many ways, we all share a bit of that same spirit found in Željka Markić....

By the way, I still haven't hung a picture of Markic on my wall yet.😎

The woman is leading a movement based on common sense. Period. She didn't write massive scientific textbooks just to gain followers—she doesn't have any. This whole comparison to Marshall is pointless. She basically said the sky is blue, and people just accepted it, which is why we're all stuck in this hive mind.

The LGBTQ+ crowd basically admitted they want to dismantle marriage. The first step is clearly just the desire, and eventually, it'll just be about forcing equality between gay and straight marriage.
Some guy at the rally said he agreed, and nobody even stood up to object.

It's funny how two different topics got mashed together here just so everyone can pivot to talking about "hate speech." It feels like the Liberals are dodging my video like a snake hiding its tail.

Casey Mitchell72 said:I'm gonna repost what Jack Cook7 said—hey Jack Cook7, I need your take on the bolded part and an answer to what's underlined.

Already covered this, but I’ll say it one more time and that's it—the LGBTQ+ crowd told UIO to stop acting like they're the ones being victimized.

Jack Cook7 said:So, Mr. restlesscrane152, do you actually know anything about the LGBTQ+ community or their role in America over, say, the last 30 years? And how on earth is it that so many politicians and "public servants" suddenly start pushing "gay-friendly" stances out of nowhere, basically being blackmailed by certain activist groups?

If you actually have the inside scoop, feel free to share it with us—don't feel like you have to keep it to yourself.

Politicians do it for votes—big shocker there. As for public opinion, it's way too complicated; probably a bunch of different factors at play. Speaking for myself, though, I'm way less annoyed by LGBTQ+ groups than I am by conservatives who try to shove their lifestyle down my throat 24/7.

restlesscrane152 said:Already covered this, but I’ll say it one more time and that's it—the LGBTQ+ crowd told UIO to stop acting like they're the ones being victimized.

Politicians do it for votes—big shocker there. As for public opinion, it's way too complicated; probably a bunch of different factors at play. Speaking for myself, though, I'm way less annoyed by LGBTQ+ groups than I am by conservatives who try to shove their lifestyle down my throat 24/7.

Honestly, I didn't get the vibe that UIO is playing the victim card at all 🤷

Politicians just do this to chase votes (total shocker, right?). As for public opinion, it's way too messy to pin down and probably depends on a million things. For me personally, it's those LGBTQ+ groups and conservatives who try way too hard to push their lifestyle down my throat.

Wait, what "forces" are conservatives using to push their lifestyle on you? Like, are they forcing you to get married? Or telling you to start a family? Making you pray? 🤷

restlesscrane152 said:Already covered this, but I’ll say it one more time and that's it—the LGBTQ+ crowd told UIO to stop acting like they're the ones being victimized.

Politicians do it for votes—big shocker there. As for public opinion, it's way too complicated; probably a bunch of different factors at play. Speaking for myself, though, I'm way less annoyed by LGBTQ+ groups than I am by conservatives who try to shove their lifestyle down my throat 24/7.

So why don't they just set actual criteria to decide what counts as being "threatened"? Or is it just way more profitable to stay stuck in that weird gray area?

Politicians do it just to chase votes (shocker, right?). As for public opinion, man, that’s a whole complicated mess involving a ton of different factors. Personally? I can tell you that both the LGBTQ+ groups and the hardline conservatives get on my nerves when they try to force their lifestyle down my throat.

If having a certain lifestyle automatically makes you a conservative, then I guess I'm about as conservative as an old canned sardine from the 1950s.

And honestly, even that little sardine, popping its head out of a fifty-year-old tin, would probably look up and say... maybe the LGBTQ+ community is spreading hate too.

Casey Mitchell72 said:Honestly, I didn't get the vibe that UIO is playing the victim card at all 🤷

Politicians just do this to chase votes (total shocker, right?). As for public opinion, it's way too messy to pin down and probably depends on a million things. For me personally, it's those LGBTQ+ groups and conservatives who try way too hard to push their lifestyle down my throat.

Wait, what "forces" are conservatives using to push their lifestyle on you? Like, are they forcing you to get married? Or telling you to start a family? Making you pray? 🤷

Nah, they’re just forcing their own way of living as the only right way. Like, you're automatically a bad person if you aren't all about patriotism, faith in God, traditional values, and all that stuff.

So why don't they just set clear criteria for what actually counts as an endangered zone? Or is staying in that gray area just way more profitable?

Because, just like a lot of other stuff, it's honestly pretty hard to define.

restlesscrane152 said:Nah, they’re just forcing their own way of living as the only right way. Like, you're automatically a bad person if you aren't all about patriotism, faith in God, traditional values, and all that stuff.

So why don't they just set clear criteria for what actually counts as an endangered zone? Or is staying in that gray area just way more profitable?

Because, just like a lot of other stuff, it's honestly pretty hard to define.

And apparently, you aren't a good person if you aren't LGBTQ+, if you don't jump to defend them at every single opportunity, if you don't have LGBTQ+ tattooed on your forehead, and if your ringtone isn't "We Are The Champions" by Freddie Mercury...

Totalitarian thinking and fascism are just that simple; you just need to have half a brain to spot them.

Jack Cook7
So why don't they just set clear criteria for what actually counts as being "threatened"? Or is it just way better and more profitable to stay in that gray area?

restlesscrane152
Because it's hard to define, just like a lot of other things.

Oh, sure! So you mean millions of "brilliant" intellectuals over the last 50 years haven't been able to define things that any random guy in a small town could figure out in five seconds?

Is someone manipulating things here? Nooooooo... because this is clearly a culture of truth, not lies and deception. I'd never lie, honest to God. I'm a class act. 👍

Jack Cook7 said:And apparently, you aren't a good person if you aren't LGBTQ+, if you don't jump to defend them at every single opportunity, if you don't have LGBTQ+ tattooed on your forehead, and if your ringtone isn't "We Are The Champions" by Freddie Mercury...

Totalitarian thinking and fascism are just that simple; you just need to have half a brain to spot them.

Jack Cook7
So why don't they just set clear criteria for what actually counts as being "threatened"? Or is it just way better and more profitable to stay in that gray area?

restlesscrane152
Because it's hard to define, just like a lot of other things.

Oh, sure! So you mean millions of "brilliant" intellectuals over the last 50 years haven't been able to define things that any random guy in a small town could figure out in five seconds?

Is someone manipulating things here? Nooooooo... because this is clearly a culture of truth, not lies and deception. I'd never lie, honest to God. I'm a class act. 👍

Look, their point is actually totally fine—just don't hit us, don't insult us, and don't discriminate against us. Honestly, that's just common sense stuff that shouldn't even be up for debate.

So what, you're saying millions of world-class intellectuals over the last 50 years haven't been able to define things that any uneducated guy in the sticks could figure out?

Sure they can. But then you'll just get another few million "intellectuals" finding loopholes in those definitions and exploiting them.

restlesscrane152 said:Look, their point is actually totally fine—just don't hit us, don't insult us, and don't discriminate against us. Honestly, that's just common sense stuff that shouldn't even be up for debate.

So what, you're saying millions of world-class intellectuals over the last 50 years haven't been able to define things that any uneducated guy in the sticks could figure out?

Sure they can. But then you'll just get another few million "intellectuals" finding loopholes in those definitions and exploiting them.

Look, I don't have a single problem with THAT specific stance. But what am I supposed to do when people start forcing stuff on me that just isn't part of my culture? 🤷

Am I just expected to sit there politely while someone performs mental assault on me, trying to force a lifestyle onto me that simply isn't who I am? Should I just be "good," gentle, reasonable, and cultured? Be "civilized"?

Or are we all just gonna have to shut down the lights at some local dive bar?

Anyway, has any of you actually seen one of those sketchy neighborhood bars after the lights go out? Usually, people are pretty decent once things settle down.

Of course I can. But then you'll just end up with a few million more "intellectuals" finding loopholes in those definitions and exploiting them.

Great! So we'll have jobs for a few million people just to do the work of one illiterate peasant. That's what they call progress and civilization, right? It's called service outsourcing, matrix management, whatever.

I mean, what else would they all be doing with their lives?
🤔

Jack Cook7 said:Look, I don't have a single problem with THAT specific stance. But what am I supposed to do when people start forcing stuff on me that just isn't part of my culture? 🤷

Am I just expected to sit there politely while someone performs mental assault on me, trying to force a lifestyle onto me that simply isn't who I am? Should I just be "good," gentle, reasonable, and cultured? Be "civilized"?

Or are we all just gonna have to shut down the lights at some local dive bar?

Anyway, has any of you actually seen one of those sketchy neighborhood bars after the lights go out? Usually, people are pretty decent once things settle down.

Of course I can. But then you'll just end up with a few million more "intellectuals" finding loopholes in those definitions and exploiting them.

Great! So we'll have jobs for a few million people just to do the work of one illiterate peasant. That's what they call progress and civilization, right? It's called service outsourcing, matrix management, whatever.

I mean, what else would they all be doing with their lives?
🤔

What exactly are you getting at?

So I’m supposed to just play nice while someone’s basically raping my brain? Force some behavior on me that isn't even who I am? What, I should just be "good," gentle, reasonable, and polite? Act all civilized? Give me a break!

Yeah.

restlesscrane152 said:Nah, they’re just forcing their own way of living as the only right way. Like, you're automatically a bad person if you aren't all about patriotism, faith in God, traditional values, and all that stuff.

So why don't they just set clear criteria for what actually counts as an endangered zone? Or is staying in that gray area just way more profitable?

Because, just like a lot of other stuff, it's honestly pretty hard to define.

Nobody is forcing anything on anyone except for those activist groups trying to shove their views down the throats of people who see the world differently. And they do it using exactly this kind of nonsense—lies, insults (calling people names like "clerical fascists"), and manipulation, pretending they aren't being pushy when they totally are. Meanwhile, those conservatives just want to be left alone and let everyone else live their lives too. 🙄

restlesscrane152 said:Look, their point is actually totally fine—just don't hit us, don't insult us, and don't discriminate against us. Honestly, that's just common sense stuff that shouldn't even be up for debate.

So what, you're saying millions of world-class intellectuals over the last 50 years haven't been able to define things that any uneducated guy in the sticks could figure out?

Sure they can. But then you'll just get another few million "intellectuals" finding loopholes in those definitions and exploiting them.

And that's the point—we shouldn't even have to bring it up! We reached a stage a long time ago where nobody should be hitting, insulting, or discriminating based on sexual orientation. Sure, there will always be isolated incidents, and those are always wrong, but overall, we haven't had to deal with widespread discrimination for ages. "Discrimination" is just another buzzword activists use when they run out of actual arguments during their public rants.

restlesscrane152 said:What exactly are you getting at?

So I’m supposed to just play nice while someone’s basically raping my brain? Force some behavior on me that isn't even who I am? What, I should just be "good," gentle, reasonable, and polite? Act all civilized? Give me a break!

Yeah.

What exactly are you forcing on gay people?
Don't just give me the "traditional values" line, because nobody is forcing that on them. People have had the right to live how they want and follow whatever values they choose for a long time now. Everyone lives their life without issues at work or on the street. Like I said before, let's not lump isolated incidents together; both gay and straight people deal with random outbursts from others now and then.

Casey Mitchell72 said:Nobody is forcing anything on anyone except for those activist groups trying to shove their views down the throats of people who see the world differently. And they do it using exactly this kind of nonsense—lies, insults (calling people names like "clerical fascists"), and manipulation, pretending they aren't being pushy when they totally are. Meanwhile, those conservatives just want to be left alone and let everyone else live their lives too. 🙄

And that's the point—we shouldn't even have to bring it up! We reached a stage a long time ago where nobody should be hitting, insulting, or discriminating based on sexual orientation. Sure, there will always be isolated incidents, and those are always wrong, but overall, we haven't had to deal with widespread discrimination for ages. "Discrimination" is just another buzzword activists use when they run out of actual arguments during their public rants.

What exactly are you forcing on gay people?
Don't just give me the "traditional values" line, because nobody is forcing that on them. People have had the right to live how they want and follow whatever values they choose for a long time now. Everyone lives their life without issues at work or on the street. Like I said before, let's not lump isolated incidents together; both gay and straight people deal with random outbursts from others now and then.

So you're telling me this initiative isn't targeting the LGBTQ+ community at all? Seriously?

Isolated cases happen, and they always will—that’s a total disgrace. But honestly? On a global scale, people stopped talking about actual discrimination a long time ago.

Give me some "isolated incidents," please—you know, times when someone actually got beaten up just for being Catholic. And I’m not talking about some random verbal insults or being heckled. I mean literal physical assaults where they ended up in the ER and had to file a police report.

Everyone’s had the right to live however they want for ages. Live by your own values. Period.

Can LGBTQ+ folks get married? Adopt kids? Look, I’m talking about LEGAL rights here—not what someone thinks marriage should be or if they think it's gross or whatever.

restlesscrane152 said:So you're telling me this initiative isn't targeting the LGBTQ+ community at all? Seriously?

Isolated cases happen, and they always will—that’s a total disgrace. But honestly? On a global scale, people stopped talking about actual discrimination a long time ago.

Give me some "isolated incidents," please—you know, times when someone actually got beaten up just for being Catholic. And I’m not talking about some random verbal insults or being heckled. I mean literal physical assaults where they ended up in the ER and had to file a police report.

Everyone’s had the right to live however they want for ages. Live by your own values. Period.

Can LGBTQ+ folks get married? Adopt kids? Look, I’m talking about LEGAL rights here—not what someone thinks marriage should be or if they think it's gross or whatever.

Nah, it really isn't.

Can you please give me some "isolated incidents" where someone actually got beaten up just because they're Catholic? And I don't mean just getting insulted—I mean literally ending up in the ER and filing a police report.

Honestly, I can't think of a single recent case like that involving a Catholic here in the States. I do remember a guy from a tiny town who got jumped over his faith, but he was drunk and everything, though religion was the spark, so I guess that counts as a hate crime too.
Look, tons of women end up in the emergency room because of violence from men, but they don't start a public war against all men or demand they be wiped out.

Can LGBTQ+ people marry? Adopt kids? Look, I'm talking about LEGAL rights here, not whether someone thinks marriage is gross or whatever.

LGBTQ+ folks can definitely make their unions legal. The current laws regarding same-sex unions are pretty flawed, but there's a new bill in the works. I'm really hoping it fixes all those lingering issues, especially the stuff involving adoption and kids.

Casey Mitchell72 said:Nah, it really isn't.

Can you please give me some "isolated incidents" where someone actually got beaten up just because they're Catholic? And I don't mean just getting insulted—I mean literally ending up in the ER and filing a police report.

Honestly, I can't think of a single recent case like that involving a Catholic here in the States. I do remember a guy from a tiny town who got jumped over his faith, but he was drunk and everything, though religion was the spark, so I guess that counts as a hate crime too.
Look, tons of women end up in the emergency room because of violence from men, but they don't start a public war against all men or demand they be wiped out.

Can LGBTQ+ people marry? Adopt kids? Look, I'm talking about LEGAL rights here, not whether someone thinks marriage is gross or whatever.

LGBTQ+ folks can definitely make their unions legal. The current laws regarding same-sex unions are pretty flawed, but there's a new bill in the works. I'm really hoping it fixes all those lingering issues, especially the stuff involving adoption and kids.

The issue isn't the religion itself—it's specifically about Catholics. Why target them? Look, if these are just isolated incidents, then it means they're happening to everyone in society on an individual basis. And yeah, that includes Catholics too.

Because crazies don't pick and choose, right?

restlesscrane152 said:Look, their point is actually totally fine—just don't hit us, don't insult us, and don't discriminate against us. Honestly, that's just common sense stuff that shouldn't even be up for debate.

So what, you're saying millions of world-class intellectuals over the last 50 years haven't been able to define things that any uneducated guy in the sticks could figure out?

Sure they can. But then you'll just get another few million "intellectuals" finding loopholes in those definitions and exploiting them.

Hold on just a second—whose "position" are we actually discussing here?
Is it the stance of an LGBTQ+ organization, or perhaps something else entirely?😁