I admittedly have "issues" with double standards ..............................

I believe that what adults do in private, to/for each other, is their business ....................... promotion of support groups for adult members are adults' choices {organizations such as NAMBLA do NOT come under this umbrella} ...................... so why is an organization that promotes 'traditional' values such a threat to others? It seems to me that allowing civil discourse just may be more effective than shouting down any 'diversity of opinion' ......................


Use of the Words 'Natural Family' Ruled Hate Speech, Appeal Hearing Underway

Decision against employees could silence debate about homosexuality and related issues in entire Western United States

OAKLAND, California, February 14, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Thursday morning, in a special session being held at the Stanford University Law School campus a critical First Amendment case is being argued before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case deals squarely with the issue of whether Christians have a right to use neutral language in the workplace to talk about same-sex marriage and other issues at the forefront of national debate.

Attorneys Scott Lively and Richard D. Ackerman will be arguing the case before the Ninth Circuit on behalf of an African- American Christian woman who was threatened with termination at her job with the City of Oakland. The City of Oakland claims that references to the "natural family, marriage and family values" constitute hate speech which is scary to city workers. The Ninth Circuit panel of judges includes two women and one man.

Back in February of 2005, United States District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled the city of Oakland had a right to bar two employees from posting a Good News Employee Association flier promoting traditional family values on an office bulletin board. According to the lawsuit, gay and lesbian city workers had already been using the city's e-mail, bulletin board, and written communications systems for promoting their views to other workers, including the plaintiffs.

Source