Zondervan under fire.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:32 pm

Welcome America where if you get offended or ticked off or feel wronged, you can sue. That's right: \"free money\". (I'm being factious there.)

A gay man is suing Zondervan publishing for $60 million dollars claiming \"their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and has caused him emotional pain and mental instability.\"

(that quote can be found HERE)

Zondervan is a Christian publishing company that publishes bibles among many other book. They don't translate.

You can read the it from the Gay perspective Here. (I didn't read this over thoroughly, just wanted to provide the other side quickly and save some google on your side)

Now, I don't really have the time to rant on this like I want to, and probably just as well. But this seems a bit over the top. Why just stop at Zondervan?? There are several large companies out there that publish bibles. (the watch tower being one of them) But I would imagine since his family has Zondervan bibles, his attorney's probably advised him that only they would be pertinent. Whatever the case I find it a bit frustrating as his complaints are lodged against the whole of Christian doctrine. It's not a singular instance with one company.

I don't think that this will go very far, but given the some of the recent court cases, it could go to the supreme court. I guess that would depend if the ACLU gets involved.

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:44 pm

Aww... we should leave the fudge packers alone so they can dig for the gold.

I just can't take those law suits serious anymore.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:57 pm

why stop with Zondervan, who has more money than God why not sue him

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:12 pm

and has caused him emotional pain and mental instability.

Well there seems to be a case for the latter but it might not be the bible that caused it.

Really this is just harassment and publicity seeking. I suppose they chose Zondervan because the name looked good on their deposition.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:13 pm

any judge worth his salt would dismiss this case with prejudice.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:49 am

And hopefully the lawyer will still stick Mr. Hershey Highway with his bill. What a Dork

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:13 am

Even if the publisher inserted verbiage that says homosexuals won't inherit the kingdom of God I don't see how the publisher would be liable for hate crimes committed by wacko Christians that decide to harm gay people because the inserted content in the publication lead them to believe god doesn't want homosexuals in heaven.

At best the authors of the original bible, if they were able, could sue for the insertion of content that wasn't part of their work but a wacko deciding to cause harm to another because of his own interpretation of the work, original or altered, can't be the fault of anyone but the wacko perpetrator.

My guess is no one really thinks they are going to get anything but publicity out of this and if that publicity comes at taxpayer expense for involving the court then the cost of that should be placed on the lawyer and the gay client for creating the situation and the publisher should be able to sue the gay client for slander or something of that nature.

It seems like this gay dude wants to become the Al Sharpton of the homosexual movement. What a truly pathetic aspiration to have!

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:00 am

Lulz?

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:41 am

It's a tough issue, because it's not clear whether the actual line does mention homosexuality as a sin or not.

As for other matters, yes the publisher is partially legally responsible for what the books they publish say. And Will, they aren't being held directly responsible for the attacks other people cause, they're being held responsible for making those people, among many others, believe that their God hates homosexuals. Which is a very serious issue, before you start saying that doesn't matter.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:48 am

TIGERassault wrote:they're being held responsible for making those people, among many others, believe that their God hates homosexuals. Which is a very serious issue, before you start saying that doesn't matter.

not to turn this into a religious discussion, but I would like you to show me where God says ANYWHERE in the Bible that he hates Homosexuals. because it isn't in there.

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:29 pm

You're absolutely right. The Bible NEVER states that God hates homosexuals. Instead, God abhores the <i>practice</i> of homosexuality (lookup up just about any biblical reference to Sodom and Gomorrah).

Homosexual or heterosexual, God still loves the person.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:25 pm

TIGERassault wrote:....And Will, they aren't being held directly responsible for the attacks other people cause, they're being held responsible for making those people, among many others, believe that their God hates homosexuals.....

I don't think there is any law against telling people what God likes or hates. In order for you to prevail in court based on that line of reasoning you would have to be able to prove what God has said he hates...

Your Honor, the people call God almighty to the stand...please place your right hand on the bible and swear before..uh... yourself, that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you...uh...you.

I'd volunteer for jury duty in that trial!!!

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:46 am

It's not tough Tiger. Scripture is pretty clear. Some profs like to obscure the exegesis of things to intentionally muddy waters where there is no need. That word he's having trouble with is translated as \"male prostitute\" in the NIV translation. the feminine version of that word is used elsewhere as female prostitute.

And there is always Leviticus 18 (the whole chapter if there's any real question.)

Aside from that. The whole premise the case is being brought in on is weak.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 5:50 am

Another way to look at it is in real world advertising. Any product maker can say his widget is the \"absolutely best\" in the whole wide world. This is called \"puffing\". When you buy the product and it turns out to be crap you cannot sue based on the claim it was \"the best\".
The Bible is basically a collection of stories and the publisher is simply reprinting them. One would be hard pressed to find any publisher being sued over such unless the stories were specifically directed at a individual. Read up on the National Enquirer to see how it all works.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:14 am

Actually, whether the Bible actually opposes homosexuality is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

Freedom of Speech includes the freedom to say things that others find offensive. That means Conservative Christians do NOT have the right to stop others from publishing pro-homosexuality works. AND, if the Westboro Baptist Church wants to publish a pamphlet saying that God hates homosexuals, no one has any right to stop them.

I don't have to read it. I'm free to tell them they are evil idiots. But I can't stop them from having their say unless they are advocating violence or committing liable or anything like that.

EVERYONE has a right to have their own say. No one has a right to be free from others disagreeing with them.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:05 pm

Kilarin, so... you're saying that the guy filing the suit is out of line because of the first Amend? .. just wanting to get it clear. Not meaning to put words in your mouth.

btw, fixed the first link. Something changed and it was 404'ing.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:37 pm

Duper wrote:Kilarin, so... you're saying that the guy filing the suit is out of line because of the first Amend?

Yes, absolutely. You have the right to say things that other people find offensive. Even idiotic things. So it does not MATTER whether the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. The claimant would be out of line even if he were suing the obviously offensive and idiotic "Westboro Baptist Church" for publishing "God hates homosexuals".

Freedom of speech includes the right to say things others find offensive. Otherwise it's absolutely meaningless.

Now, an important part of this that is often misunderstood is that just because you have the right to "Freedom Of Speech" does NOT mean that anyone has to listen. I've heard people protest that their "Freedom of Speech" was being violated because people boycotted their albums or books. Sorry. You have to right to speak, you do NOT have the right to force me to listen.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:26 pm

Apparantly, it's not quite the same in Canada. I just heard (from several sources) today about Canada's Human rights Commission going all Spanish inquisition. There is a lengthy ..well somewhat lengthy.. article HERE.
Here too.
Ya know.. the goofy thing is that in supporting Islam, they support a group of people (or religion) that is vehemently against homosexuality as much or more so than Christianity ..which is what they are prosecuting that guy for. (speaking out against homosexuality) o_0 and as a side not. Homosexuals are executed in some Islamic countries.

wow. Hey Merlin! What's going on up there?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:39 am

Duper wrote: Canada's Human rights Commission going all Spanish inquisition.

Yeah, Canada is going in some VERY scary directions. I think US is heading to the same place. (And, of course, the US has it's OWN problems besides)

Once a country starts trying to protect people, not from having their rights trampled upon, but from merely being "offended", the results are guaranteed to be a stifling of freedom across the board.

MD-1118 · Post by **MD-1118** » Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:53 pm

TIGERassault wrote:It's a tough issue, because it's not clear whether the actual line does mention homosexuality as a sin or not.

As for other matters, yes the publisher is partially legally responsible for what the books they publish say. And Will, they aren't being held directly responsible for the attacks other people cause, they're being held responsible for making those people, among many others, believe that their God hates homosexuals. Which is a very serious issue, before you start saying that doesn't matter.

First off, no one makes anyone do anything. Everyone makes their own decisions. Just thought I'd clear that up. Anywho...

True, God doesn't hate homosexuals (that is, assuming he even exists), but he does hate homosexuality (again, supposing he exists at all). For your viewing pleasure (or not), this (Bible ref 01), this (Bible ref 02), and this (Bible ref 03).

Also, for my own viewing pleasure as well as a few others,
Blasphemous pic 01, and
Blasphemous pic 02. =P

Zondervan under fire.

Zondervan under fire.

Re:

Re:

Re: