Opens a can of worms doesn’t it. I’d like to know what orfeo thinks of this. He’s always great with legal stuff.

If this guy is charged then every conservative church person who says the same thing in Britain should be charged too. And he no doubt doesn’t have malicious intent, believing he’s doing the right thing according to his interpretation of the bible.

Yes it is a pickle of a question. (to sound like Ned Flanders )

I agree – it would be nice to move about freely in life without others assuming we’re sinners, purely on the grounds of sexual orientation. The judge has perhaps reacted extremely in an attempt to counteract the homophobic society we live in. But that can be just as damaging as homophobia. As is common with major societal shifts, this example probably illustrates how the pendulum swings from one side to the other before settling in middle ground. And that can take some time to achieve.

I fall on the camp of needing to rein in free speech. Free speech against organisations and government to critique and bring consciousness is fine.

Speaking without consciousness and putting down groups of people adversely impact people and needs to be reined in. Obviously there is a spectrum from subtle disregard to overt insult and verbal abuse, however, most people are not aware of the impact of their words. No one would argue about the danger of a person wantonly waving a gun aimlessly. However, insulting people or groups aimlessly, that also has as negative an impact I say.

here is a thought……..what the preacher is saying is actually true and false

Homosexuals are sinners……but so are heterosexuals.

and as our gentleman in Adelaide has mentioned……what about the damage that a message of error causes. On whose hands is the blood of those who have taken their lives.

But avb, the preacher said “homosexuality is a sin”…the truth is homosexuals, heterosexuals, bi-sexuals, asexuals…whatever-sexuals are sinners, we all are….but homosexuality as an orientation isn’t a sin. The law clearly says he hasn’t the right to say that, and because the law also says other things too, impinging on our freedom of speech,, perhaps the law needs to change hehe.

Tricky, do we decide to let these types of comments slide at the risk of losing our freedom of speech to have a say on other topics??

And as far as I know there’s still the religious objection/exemption (outside the law) that allows people to make these kinds of comments based on their faith or interpretation thereof. I think that’s what the judge was trying to change; that people wouldn’t get away with expressing predjudice under the religious banner.

Any lawyers or those more familiar with the law, please feel free to correct me or add to this discussion.

This is all the more interesting in light of the recent incident in Australia where a polie officer was called a “prick” and the person saying it was arrested. The case was later thrown out of court as completly ridiclous. Obviously there are some differences but the basic premise is the same. Can you say hateful things about people in public and get away with it? Apparently so. My gut tells me it would be nice to see this ‘preacher’ held accountable for his ‘beliefs’ and the public reciognition that it is discriminatory. But where do you draw the line. If that precedent was set pretty soon all kinds of evangalistic methods would be crimes because Christians claim that Jesus is the only way and that ultimatley everyone else are sinners without redemption who will die and go to hell. Ain’t a real pretty picture and I could see it coming under the label of “abusive” and “causing distress” objectivly and from a secular standpoint, there is no difference between that statement and the one about homosexuality. It wouldn’t be the first time that a bunch of Christians were locked up but do we really need to go there?

Freedom of speech is a right, but the preacher is abusing the right to promote hatred, the preacher may not be aware he is promoting hatred.

Legally, as I said, the preacher is entitled to freedom of speech, but in this case, he can be charged for abusing the right of freedom of speech by slandering, and promoting hatred. I am not sure if Britain have any law that is specifically targeting homophobic actions or comments, but certainly, he can be charged for slandering and promoting hatred targeting a minority group. And also, he did mention that he was telling ONE passing shopper about the sin of homosexuality, clearly, his action is targeting an individual, that may or may not get him a charge of verbal assault to an individual.

In general, He should be charged, but I guess the best way to let people know about homosexuality and faith is through knowledge and education.

Very good points JKH and AnnMaree….’tis a tough one eh?