So, do you not believe that the NBA, a private business, has the right to censure their employee in any way they see fit?

I believe that “hate speech” is protected by the First Amendment, but that doesn’t protect someone from being punished by a private entity that employs them for particularly insidious remarks. I applaud the NBA for taking a principled stand, but I oppose the bill that has been proposed because it tramples on the First Amendment.

Do you think that Hardaway saying that he hates gay people and that they shouldn’t be allowed in the US or in the world is acceptable? Your reaction to it says that you do. If so, how does that fit with President Hinckley’s charge to love our gay brothers and sisters. I don’t find your remarks particularly bad (although we won’t find much agreement on the issue of gay rights), but Hardaway’s were terrible, and you’re defending them. Sheesh.

In this context of this discussion, yes. The First Amendment gives Hardaway just that opportunity, does it not?

Yes, it does, but that’s not what I was asking.

10 words is hardly a “reaction”.

Fair enough. I just thought it was a strange way of defending your position.

Sure, I disagree with Hardaway’s words.

I’m glad.

I disagree with some of yours, occasionally. So what? Does that mean your employer should fire you because there are people out there who don’t like what you have to say?

That depends on what I say. If I said that high school students were filthy little maggots who had nothing to contribute to this world, so they shouldn’t be here, I’d expect to be fired, especially if I said it in public. Since my job is to teach high school students, those words would be particularly detrimental to my ability to teach. As would it be if I said I hated gay people and had a gay student (which I have had, btw).

When Hardaway said that “[homosexuality] shouldn’t be in the world or in the United States,” is that considered any more offensive or atrocious than what we might hear over the pulpit?

I actually believe that it is. Even though the Church is against homosexuality, they are always careful to say that they don’t hate the person or wish them ill. Hardaway makes no such qualifying statement. Maybe I’m debating a matter of semantics, but I think there is a difference.

Prophets of God have been saying the same things for millennia. Should they be benched as well?

No, and they haven’t been saying it the same way Hardaway did. Furthermore, they aren’t employed by a private entity, so no one has the right to “bench” them. Their speech is protected by the Constitution, and there isn’t a private entity that they answer to. They’re in the clear.

What would happen to the Church politically/economically/socially if such legislation were past, and our leaders (Prophets of the Lord, no less!) were targeted and punished for their words?

It would be bad. I agree with you that the bill is bad; however, I don’t think the welfare of a church should be the concern of the congress. That being said, protecting the First Amendment definitely should be their concern, which is why this bill is bad.

I tend to become fearfully concerned when I attempt to participate in these discussions because it is not my desire, in any way, to offend, but there are times when I see no other course of action.

This legislation, and the real intent behind it has absolutely nothing to do with so-called “hate speech.” It has everything to do with “control,” period.

Consider, if you will, what we are doing in the Church when we send our young men and women out into the world to proclaim the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. The very message itself is “offensive’ to some. The time is coming, and not in the too distant future, when we are not going to be able to send our Missionaries out to proselyte in the United States, period. Of course, this will also mean that the remainder of the world will follow our lead if they aren’t already keeping us from so doing.

It is time to start realizing that the adversary is coming into his greatest period of control because he has many willing, and able pawns who blindly go about the earth following after his gospel plan.

At least one of the current participants in this topic of conversation is aware that I am promoting Mitt Romney for President of the United State of America. BTW, I do not intend to waste my time discussing with others why I should consider an alternative course. I merely wish to make a point about the level of hateful conversations running rampant due to Mitt being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Brothers, and sisters we are about to become the most hated group of people in this country based on the type of words, and speech I witness many times each day. The Internet has opened the doors for everyone to offer his opinion on blog sites, and that is a good thing, but of course Lucifer has his power also. Of course, many of these sites actually do not reach a wide audience, but I am afraid the media is fanning the flames which they will do relentlessly. Most of the difficulty is coming from the so-called Evangelicals who do not believe we are Christian, and the rhetoric is becoming more hateful every day. BTW, this type of speech will not be considered hate speech by the powers behind the scenes as at serves their ultimate purpose of creating a New World Order free of Christian thought, and conservative ideas.

If it is not apparent to some in the Church who do not venture out of their comfort zones that we are going to be tested concerning our allegiance to Christ by the adversarial minions being brought together at this time, I am afraid for you. The cleansing process is under way at this very moment, and I pray we will awaken from our complacent slumber before it is everlastingly too late.