- Joined
- Feb 20, 2018
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 59
- Age
- 57
No ... thanks for the input though. How this got mixed up in my subscribed sections I don’t know. I apologise [emoji4]
There’s such intolerance against Christianity
- Thread starter WV. Rootman
- Start date
No ... thanks for the input though. How this got mixed up in my subscribed sections I don’t know. I apologise [emoji4]
Yes- right- absolutely.
Right? YES- absolutely! I agree with you 100% re equity also. That is my point. Its the screaming of intolerance that I struggle with. Homosexuality isn't confined to primates, it has been demonstrated in many mammals. I don't see any of the religious entities being condemned by our Gay or Lesbian brothers and sisters other than in response to direct attacks.
I really think you’re not looking closely enough, or acknowledging the attacks that do occur.. The Christian church, in fact, is probably the source of the most solid support for the LBGT community in this country: for every small southern baptist (or whatever) congregation pressing homosexuality as a mortal sin, there’s probably three congregations promoting “love your neighbor”, no matter what his sexuality may be, that means nothing in the general public discourse, where the Christian community is presented as a bigoted antithesis to equal rights of all types.. your own post, offering a snarky (in my view and perception, of course) “not everybody is a Jesus lover”... really? The OP offered a case where a Christian body was censored for the sole reason that they were Christian and offered a Christian message. That would NEVER be considered for censorship in today’s world if it was promoting an LGBT message. Never. Absolutely never. If the idea ever came up to do so, the world would crash down around the perpetrator, their career would be finished, and their Wikipedia entry forever stained as a blatant purveyor of intolerance. Equity? Right. That’s ludicrous.
My point was principally with respect to the seeming sensationalised headline of claimed "such intolerance against christianity". I have great difficulty accepting the reason for the request that the subject banner be removed was because it contained an image of the bible or that it promoted a religious event. That is and should be unacceptable anywhere. With respect to anything official from Irvine Co on the matter it seems there was a complaint and a threat. No further detail. Anything of a specific nature purporting to outline the circumstances would appear to be conjecture and perhaps convenient assumption. It seemed to be more likely there were other reasons here and that the promoters have pulled the intolerance card to create publicity in the media. It might be that the advertising policy is that only product and service promoting adverts are ordinarily accepted and that those of a political and religious nature are precluded by policy. That is certainly the case with the Irvine Co freeway signs "the approved sign program allows the Irvine Co. to display the names and symbols of on-site tenants and products and services available at the center, as well as special events and city events. However, it bans copy related to off-site businesses to prevent the signs from becoming billboards".
The question remains; what would the reaction be if this was a gay pride week billboard?
The answer is, the company in question would be up on hate speech charges by now...
“Complaints and a serious (imaginary and unreported) threat” wouldn’t even enter into the decision in the face of possible reprisals doled out by the lgbt mafia.
The answer is, the company in question would be up on hate speech charges by now...
“Complaints and a serious (imaginary and unreported) threat” wouldn’t even enter into the decision in the face of possible reprisals doled out by the lgbt mafia.
Who knows? Maybe that advert would be outside what is ordinarily accepted (prescribed in policy) also. Actual reasons why the banners were taken down appear not to have made it into the public domain.
Well, it does say pretty specifically what their pronpblem with it was,..”However, after claiming the religious imagery on the ads provoked multiple complaints, including a “serious threat,” the Irvine Company mandated the billboards be modified. Harvest complied with the request and resubmitted new ad artwork without the image of the Bible. Ultimately, however, the changes were not enough to resolve the situation as the Irvine Company decided to completely remove all the advertisements and billboards for the crusade.”
Ok- are you prepared to consider the reality simply may have been there is a policy not to allow display of advertising material that promotes a particular religious message? This would not be uncommon. I would be horrified to find it related to Christians specifically as should anyone be. I still believe that could not be the case here. To suggest the organisation has a right to buy the advertising service would be an unacceptable interference with commercial freedom. The advertiser is entitled to take the position that any religious advertising could be considered offensive by a section of the public and amount to proselytising.
Last edited:
So what was their excuse after they complied with their request and removed the terribly offensive artwork?
I would be interested to learn from where you have obtained the “terribly offensive artwork” quote.... while it is conceivable one of the objectors may have used those or similar words I would be amazed if they were the reasons relied on leading to the ultimate refusal to proceed with allowing the subject banner(s) to be displayed. As to excuse? I think it’s more appropriate to learn the reasons as stated. They might give reasons as a matter of courtesy, you might wxpect that as reasonable, they don’t need an excuse. Ultimately the entity owning the property has the final say in what material they allow to be displayed. My issue here is the claim of intolerance towards Christianity. If the advertising policy applies to all religious material it is an unreasonable allegation. Why risk offending or upsetting a proportion of your customer base? It’s best to steer clear I would think.
It’s not a quote. I wrote it, you’re welcome to use it as such with no attribution needed.
Meanwhile, my point is back to the equity: there’s a lot of stuff out there that is offensive to SOMEBODY. Coca-Cola is offensive to the sugared-drinks nazis. Are you going to tell them they can’t advertise?
The point is that the “offensive quotient” is applied unequally. Back to gay pride week: that is offensive to a large segment of the population, and may very well be vocally protested as such.. However, the second someone even hints at pulling down ads for such an event on that basis, the flood of hate and discontent would be unstoppable. Labels of “homophobic nazi” would be liberally applied to all involved, protests would ensue, boycotts called for, etc. etc. etc.... you’d think they had refused to bake a cake or something..
You know that as well as anybody else here, but simply denying the politically correct “classifications” of different groups of people don’t make those classifications, and their resultant treatment, go away..
ALL advertising is “proselytizing”. That’s the whole point of it. If you don’t want to go to this event, you can treat it just as I would a jay-z and Beyoncé concert advertised on the next billboard: roll your eyes, don’t go to the concert, and forget the entire incident. You don’t threaten the billboard owner because you don’t like the music. There was nothing obscene, offensive, vulgar, or anything else about that ad. A fully clothed guy with a book. If the same standard was applied equally to other advertising clients, the billboard industry wouldn’t last a week.
Ok... so your assuming the reason for the banner being pulled was because it was said to contain offensive artwork? Let’s get back to the know facts- the property owner ultimately decided not to allow the banner to be displayed. That is their right. To claim that is a direct display of intolerance to Christianity is unreasonable- that’s all I’m saying. And for what it’s worth if it’s true that was the reason I would be with you 100%...
. They removed the artwork at the company’s request when they started in with the complaints and threats claim. Then the company went one step further and pulled the plug entirely, finally apologizing to them over it later. It really doesn’t exactly take the worlds most finely honed powers of deductive reasoning to say that the original “editing” request provides a pretty solid clue...
Meanwhile, you’ve yet to address my other point: if this was a gay rights parade, are you honestly positing that anyone would dare pull the ads down in response to alleged complaints and threats?
In the absence of facts, an official comment from the property owner would suffice here- I would prefer to beleive it was a policy decision that wasn’t Christianity intolerance motivated. To assume it was is, amongst other things, grossly unfair to the property owner. To the extent it was I would think the event promoters lawyers would be making a big issue out of it.
The centre owner would have the same freedom available to them in deciding whether to consent to the banner being displayed. It would not necessarily suggest intolerance, the argument of wanting to appear neutral is a strong and reasonable position.
What is the question? If a banner promoting a gay rights parade might not be accepted for display? Of course that might be the case. The circumstances are no different. I think what you might need to come to terms with is that a property owner is entitled to decide what advertising might be suitable for display on their premises and should be able to do so without being accused of intolerance. And if they decide to not display anything as a result of concerns raised by their patrons they are open to do that also.
What about the bakery forced to inscribe a cake against their religious will? Or to put it in your terms: to suggest the same-sex couple had a right to buy the cake decorating service would be an unacceptable interference with commercial freedom.”
Do you see what I did there? ;-)
I’m neither a devout Christian nor anti same-sex marriage. But I’m a hypocrisy hawk. There. I said it.
I’m not sure what you did- I will need to think about itt. I do know one church in my country refused to marry a couple (straight and members of the congregation) on the basis the bride stated she supported gay marriage. Even the Prime Minister commented there was nothing that could be done. Marriage celebrants however that commenced operations after the bill took effect can’t refuse to officiate for same sex couples.What about the bakery forced to inscribe a cake against their religious will? Or to put it in your terms: to suggest the same-sex couple had a right to buy the cake decorating service would be an unacceptable interference with commercial freedom.”
Do you see what I did there? ;-)
I’m neither a devout Christian nor anti same-sex marriage. But I’m a hypocrisy hawk. There. I said it.
