OldBrownsFan Posted June 27, 2015 Report Share Posted June 27, 2015 The pushback on this ruling has just begun. In this instance a newspaper decides to be a dictator and refuse to print editorials that speak against the Supreme Court ruling. After hearing negative feedback from the public the editor *found* free speech once again. Newspaper faces firestorm after attempted crack-down on anti-gay marriage op-edsA Pennsylvania newspaper is facing a firestorm of criticism after the editorial board said it would "very strictly limit" op-eds and letters against same-sex marriage on the heels of Friday's historic Supreme Court ruling. PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg has issued a string of statements on its opinion page policies since the ruling -- which legalized gay marriage nationwide -- and by Saturday morning, appeared to have softened its op-ed restrictions on the subject. But the newspaper initially took a hard-line stance. Editorial Page Editor John Micek tweeted shortly after the ruling that the newspaper would "no longer accept" or print op-eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage. The editorial board then began to dial back, in the face of apparent criticism from readers. A newspaper editorial published online was updated Friday afternoon to clarify the board's op-ed policy. In the editorial, which cheered the decision and said majority opinion author Justice Anthony Kennedy "nailed it," the board issued the following statement: "As a result of Friday's ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage. "These unions are now the law of the land. And we will not publish such letters and op-Eds any more than we would publish those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic. "We will, however, for a limited time, accept letters and op-Eds on the high court's decision and its legal merits." This apparently did not satisfy readers, who posted a cascade of critical comments online. One read: "Clearly, PennLive's policy is not to limit criticism of settled law, but rather to limit criticism of settled law that its editors like." Saying he had been inundated with critical emails and phone calls, Micek then apologized in a column on Saturday morning -- saying they had made a "very genuine attempt at fostering a civil discussion" but recognize that "there are people of good conscience and of goodwill who will disagree with Friday's high court ruling." He wrote: "They are, and always will be, welcome in these pages, along with all others of goodwill, who seek to have an intelligent and reasoned debate on the issues of the day. These pages, I remind myself finally, belong to the people of Central Pennsylvania. I'm a conduit, I recognize, for them to share their views and to have the arguments that make us better as a people. And all views are -- and always will be -- welcome." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 27, 2015 Report Share Posted June 27, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gay-marriage-and-other-major-rulings-at-the-supreme-court/2015/06/25/ef75a120-1b6d-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html?tid=sm_fb Expect appeals shortly... A Supreme Court ruling is final. There are no appeals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 27, 2015 Report Share Posted June 27, 2015 What a fucking joke of an article. Especially the part about the constitution making no direct or in-direct reference to the gay community. Cal, I agree with you on multiple things. I would however, suggest you stop using that website as a source for argument. Especially if that's the best they can produce. Tiam ************************************************* Well, I appreciate you agreeing with me on some things. But the Constitution does not refer to gays at all. Doesn't refer to marriage at all. If you think it does, let me know where - I'll check it out diligently. http://www.suanews.com/constitution/gay-marriage-what-does-our-constitution-say.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted June 27, 2015 Report Share Posted June 27, 2015 What a fucking joke of an article. Especially the part about the constitution making no direct or in-direct reference to the gay community. Cal, I agree with you on multiple things. I would however, suggest you stop using that website as a source for argument. Especially if that's the best they can produce. Tiam ************************************************* Well, I appreciate you agreeing with me on some things. But the Constitution does not refer to gays at all. Doesn't refer to marriage at all. If you think it does, let me know where - I'll check it out diligently. http://www.suanews.com/constitution/gay-marriage-what-does-our-constitution-say.html Doesn't have too reference anything specific. That's the beauty of a 'living' document. So long as you are a citizen of these United States, you are afforded the same equal civil rights as the next person. If not we could go on about a million different examples not directly cited and form straw man arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 27, 2015 Report Share Posted June 27, 2015 So men are being deprived of their civil right to physically bear children? After all, you think our Consitution is a "living document", which means liberals can remake it in their own cultural way when they get the political power. I call baloney. There is no civil right to be a pervert, and force others to treat you like you are not one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 27, 2015 Report Share Posted June 27, 2015 The pushback on this ruling has just begun. In this instance a newspaper decides to be a dictator and refuse to print editorials that speak against the Supreme Court ruling. After hearing negative feedback from the public the editor *found* free speech once again. Newspaper faces firestorm after attempted crack-down on anti-gay marriage op-edsA Pennsylvania newspaper is facing a firestorm of criticism after the editorial board said it would "very strictly limit" op-eds and letters against same-sex marriage on the heels of Friday's historic Supreme Court ruling. PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg has issued a string of statements on its opinion page policies since the ruling -- which legalized gay marriage nationwide -- and by Saturday morning, appeared to have softened its op-ed restrictions on the subject. But the newspaper initially took a hard-line stance. Editorial Page Editor John Micek tweeted shortly after the ruling that the newspaper would "no longer accept" or print op-eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage. The editorial board then began to dial back, in the face of apparent criticism from readers. A newspaper editorial published online was updated Friday afternoon to clarify the board's op-ed policy. In the editorial, which cheered the decision and said majority opinion author Justice Anthony Kennedy "nailed it," the board issued the following statement: "As a result of Friday's ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage. "These unions are now the law of the land. And we will not publish such letters and op-Eds any more than we would publish those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic. "We will, however, for a limited time, accept letters and op-Eds on the high court's decision and its legal merits." This apparently did not satisfy readers, who posted a cascade of critical comments online. One read: "Clearly, PennLive's policy is not to limit criticism of settled law, but rather to limit criticism of settled law that its editors like." Saying he had been inundated with critical emails and phone calls, Micek then apologized in a column on Saturday morning -- saying they had made a "very genuine attempt at fostering a civil discussion" but recognize that "there are people of good conscience and of goodwill who will disagree with Friday's high court ruling." He wrote: "They are, and always will be, welcome in these pages, along with all others of goodwill, who seek to have an intelligent and reasoned debate on the issues of the day. These pages, I remind myself finally, belong to the people of Central Pennsylvania. I'm a conduit, I recognize, for them to share their views and to have the arguments that make us better as a people. And all views are -- and always will be -- welcome." ugh, just like the militant anti-gay community to push their agenda.... or just people still no quite understanding what freedom of speech actually is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 ugh, just like the militant anti-gay community to push their agenda.... or just people still no quite understanding what freedom of speech actually is Apparently you don't. If you read the article the editor apologized. If he was right in censoring letters to the editor with a view point he didn't agree with why did he apologize? Oh...he didn't know as much as Woody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 Apparently you don't. If you read the article the editor apologized. If he was right in censoring letters to the editor with a view point he didn't agree with why did he apologize? Oh...he didn't know as much as Woody. Because the militant anti-gay community pushed their agenda on that newspaper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 Because the militant anti-gay community pushed their agenda on that newspaper! Anti gay community pushing their agenda by writing a letter to the editor...now that is funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 Both sides are the same You don't like my religion, then you can't get married We want to get married, so screw your religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 Anti gay community pushing their agenda by writing a letter to the editor...now that is funny. Exactly. That's the point. Does Jesus not believe in sarcasm either? The point was to make fun of the "militant gays" we hear so much about. They're a newspaper, a company, they can do as they please. It isn't attacking your freedom of speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 If gay marriage is legal, and churches still preach that it is wrong, are they now making a political statement? Does that nullify their tax protected status? Can we not subsidize them any more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 If gay marriage is legal, and churches still preach that it is wrong, are they now making a political statement? Does that nullify their tax protected status? Can we not subsidize them any more? Exactly. That's the point. Does Jesus not believe in sarcasm either? The point was to make fun of the "militant gays" we hear so much about. They're a newspaper, a company, they can do as they please. It isn't attacking your freedom of speech. That editor was wrong and he knew it. He did not apologize because he was right. A private newspaper can set whatever rules they want in regards to letters to editors but I have never seen any conditions set in letters to the editors that opinions differing from those of the editor would not be printed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 If gay marriage is legal, and churches still preach that it is wrong, are they now making a political statement? Does that nullify their tax protected status? Can we not subsidize them any more? Just reading a bible verse might be enough to get a church *busted*. Anyway I am all for churches giving up tax exempt status so they will have no constraints to say whatever they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 Then I am all for taking away the tax exempt status of unions, especially the education unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 http://time.com/3938050/orthodox-christians-must-now-learn-to-live-as-exiles-in-our-own-country/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 When unions are just a wing of the democratic party they should not have tax exempt status. I agree with Mike Huckabee on churches giving up tax exempt status so they can be free to speak in the pulpit: "You may not clap real loud for this, but at least hear me out and think about it and pray about it," Huckabee told the pastors. "I think we need to recognize that it may be time to quit worrying so much about the tax code and start thinking more about the truth of the living God."If that means giving up tax-exempt status and tax deductions for charitable contributions, Huckabee said he chooses freedom to say whatever he wants. "Of late, the Republican Party has tried to tell those of us who are evangelicals that maybe we need to dial it back a little bit when it comes to issues like the sanctity of life and the holiness of marriage and maybe just ease off."Saying he had a "news flash" for the GOP, Huckabee told the pastors, "I plan to take my last ride in life on a white horse, not on an elephant and not on a donkey, and I will stick with the word of God, and if the party, any party, goes a different way, I stick with Jesus. I believe he is forever." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 When unions are just a wing of the democratic party they should not have tax exempt status. I agree with Mike Huckabee on churches giving up tax exempt status so they can be free to speak in the pulpit: "You may not clap real loud for this, but at least hear me out and think about it and pray about it," Huckabee told the pastors. "I think we need to recognize that it may be time to quit worrying so much about the tax code and start thinking more about the truth of the living God." If that means giving up tax-exempt status and tax deductions for charitable contributions, Huckabee said he chooses freedom to say whatever he wants. "Of late, the Republican Party has tried to tell those of us who are evangelicals that maybe we need to dial it back a little bit when it comes to issues like the sanctity of life and the holiness of marriage and maybe just ease off." Saying he had a "news flash" for the GOP, Huckabee told the pastors, "I plan to take my last ride in life on a white horse, not on an elephant and not on a donkey, and I will stick with the word of God, and if the party, any party, goes a different way, I stick with Jesus. I believe he is forever." I completely agree with Huckabee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 Just reading a bible verse might be enough to get a church *busted*. Anyway I am all for churches giving up tax exempt status so they will have no constraints to say whatever they want. I agree with you there. For different reasons, but I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 If you want to talk about a politician pandering to a group, look no further than Huckabee and "real America" (the quotes aren't for emphasis) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 Churches will not give up their tax exempt statuses. Too many of them have pastors driving a Lexus while telling their congregation to give more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 If you want to talk about a politician pandering to a group, look no further than Huckabee and "real America" (the quotes aren't for emphasis) Still that particular group of Americans deserves attention just the same as every other group regardless of your animosity toward Christians older people conservatives straight and whites. I'm happy enough with the ruling but I agree with justice Roberts in that it has nothing to do with the Constitution. Those of you who still believe the Constitution means something are naive in my opinion. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 Oh, I think real America thrives on our Constitution. It's just that it is not being followed by the left. Leftist judges are talking their toll on our rights. Now it's the Supreme Court that is very much split by political leanings. And the left never deviates in any fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 Oh, I think real America thrives on our Constitution. It's just that it is not being followed by the left. Leftist judges are talking their toll on our rights. Now it's the Supreme Court that is very much split by political leanings. And the left never deviates in any fashion. Cal you know I agree with you on principle but I'm talking about the reality. Any write that anyone assumes they automatically are entitled to can be stripped away at any time by a 5 to 4 vote by less people than shit on the Politburo. wss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 Oh, I think real America thrives on our Constitution. It's just that it is not being followed by the left. Leftist judges are talking their toll on our rights. Now it's the Supreme Court that is very much split by political leanings. And the left never deviates in any fashion. Cal you know I agree with you on principle but I'm talking about the reality. Any right that anyone assumes they automatically are entitled to can be stripped away at any time by a 5 to 4 vote by less people than shit on the Politburo.wss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 Still that particular group of Americans deserves attention just the same as every other group regardless of your animosity toward Christians older people conservatives straight and whites. I'm happy enough with the ruling but I agree with justice Roberts in that it has nothing to do with the Constitution. Those of you who still believe the Constitution means something are naive in my opinion. WSS Of course they do. But if these were inner city minorities you'd be on your "free stuff" kick. He doesn't push free stuff, he pushes Jesus and the good ole times. Different key, same song. I have animosity to white, straight people? Oh shit, I better not let me know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 I love how Obama and Hillary Clinton act like they have been the ones leading this fight for gay marriage all along when these two Johnny come lateley's until very recently both were saying publicly marriage was between a man and a woman. They *evolved* on the issue...Puhleeze. The political winds shifted and they jumped on board. No profiles in courage for these two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 How dare anyone change their mind on something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 Exactly what OBF just posted. Exfreakinxactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 28, 2015 Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 Politicians of all stripes will respond how the polls tell them they should respond. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.