" Franklin Graham Has Been Rejected by Every Venue for His UK Tour"

[BilliardsBall]

.

"Every UK venue that had been booked on behalf of Christian evangelist Franklin Graham has now refused to play along with the anti-LGBTQ bigot, leaving him scrambling to find hosts for his hate parade.

Remember that just last week, a venue in Liverpool said no to hosting Graham because of his long history of bigotry which was “incompatible with our values.” The dominoes began falling after that.

Now all eight venues that had been booked have canceled on Graham.

The Utilita Arena in Newcastle was the final venue to announce it had axed the preacher, following the lead of venues in Birmingham, Newport, Glasgow, Milton Keynes, Sheffield and Liverpool. A London date, also planned, never secured a venue.

Newcastle’s Utilita Arena confirmed on Wednesday: “Following talks with our partners and relevant stakeholders we can confirm that the Franklin Graham event scheduled at the Utilita Arena Newcastle in June will not take place.”​

Thoughts and prayers.

Remember that this isn’t some attack on Christianity. It’s a rejection of the brand of Christianity that claims homosexuality is a “sin,” that Satan created same-sex marriage, that the existence of gay people amounts to a “moral 9/11,” that gay people are “the enemy” of civilization, and that gay conversion torture is a wonderful idea.
source​

.

Yes, and his father Billy was HORRIBLE, too. How can you STAND these hypocrites! (Rolls eyes.)

Bad news coming for the UK. Don't buy British stocks after this one!

"Lord Jesus, please be merciful to the UK for this rejection of a man of God."

 

[Galateasdream]

Now you're just playing semantics. It's what you said. What's more, you said you would let them go unopposed.


And this is exactly why your policing of this issue is inadequate. You seem to think it's wrong for people to decide what speech counts as hate speech, and then you go ahead and decide for yourself what constitutes hate speech. You feel you are the person who gets to determine "x constitutes a threat, but y does not", but you are not qualified to judge these things, because you fail to see how dehumanization and pushing for harmful, unscientific therapies poses a direct threat to the existence of a targeted group. If he were saying the exact same things about black people, I doubt very much you wouldn't consider his position to be heavily leaning in to advocating genocide.

And I never said he should be imprisoned. I said that they shouldn't be platformed. My issue, from the start, has been the PLATFORMING of such speech, not the criminalization of it.

Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree, since you seem to insist on misrepresenting me even after I correct you.

Nevermind

 

[Galateasdream]

If he were saying the exact same things about black people, I doubt very much you wouldn't consider his position to be heavily leaning in to advocating genocide.

Actually, I'd treat it just the same regardless of whatever group was being targeted.

 

[SomeRandom]

Well, that's a little different.

I guess it didn't stand out to me. Where I live Graham and his ilk are quite common. He's hardly an unknown quantity. He's filled huge regional venues here a couple of times.
Tom

I recognised the name (I think.) But everything I’ve seen from this “ministry” is much tamer and, for lack of a better word, much more PC than the quotes from the OP. So I dunno. Maybe he’s good at not revealing his power level?

 

[Nakosis]

Free speech is the right not to be punished by the government for what you say.

Free speech is not:

- being entitled to get a booking at a performance venue.
- the right not to experience retetribution from private individuals or businesses because of what you say.
- being entitled to have people think well of you.

You mean I'm not entitled to have people think well of me?!!

OMG, that blows my whole paradigm right out of the water.

 

[Nakosis]

"Free speech" does not mean that one is free to go anywhere one wants and to stink up the venue. "Free speech" only means that the government will not punish you for your speech. Others are free to do so.

Well not exactly free. Even those that disagree with you, still have to follow the law.

 

[metis]

Franklin obviously did not take his father's advise that meddling in secular politics can sometimes have nasty results. Billy Graham stated looking back that it was a mistake on his part to get political when he became an outspoken buddy of Nixon.

Since Trump dissed Jesus at the Prayer Luncheon, and since Franklin still defended Trump afterword, I think we can put 2 + 2 together and conclude where his allegiance really is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well not exactly free. Even those that disagree with you, still have to follow the law.

And the law does not way one can speak wherever one wishes.

 

[Nakosis]

And the law does not way one can speak wherever one wishes.

I'll be happy to respond as soon as I can figure out what you are saying.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You mean I'm not entitled to have people think well of me?!!

OMG, that blows my whole paradigm right out of the water.

Some people have trouble with this fact. It seems to be pretty frequent among people who see "de-platforming" as a free speech issue.

 

[Nakosis]

Some people have trouble with this fact. It seems to be pretty frequent among people who see "de-platforming" as a free speech issue.

You mean a business having a right to not provide service to folks they ideologically disagree with?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll be happy to respond as soon as I can figure out what you are saying.

You do not understand what "freedom of speech" means.

 

[columbus]

You do not understand what "freedom of speech" means.

Nobody believes in utterly unfettered freedom of speech. We just draw different lines between acceptable and unacceptable.
Culturally the USA tends to be broader than nearly anyone else. But not always, ask Milo Y.
Tom

 

[Galateasdream]

who see "de-platforming" as a free speech issue.

I see de-platforming as a free speech issue. And I totally support people's rights to vigorously critique and attack the POV of those they disagree with. And I've never seen anyone who thinks de-platforming is a free speech issue think otherwise, but maybe it's different in the US to the UK.

 

[Galateasdream]

Nobody believes in utterly unfettered freedom of speech

There are some who are true FS extremists.
But mostly everyone draws some line. I call myself a FS fundamentalist or libertarian, but not a FS extremist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean a business having a right to not provide service to folks they ideologically disagree with?

Not only that. Countries can do so as well. Another US pastor has been banned by perhaps a record thirty-four countries.

Steven Anderson Gets Banned By Another Country

Graham can at least visit England.

EDIT: Is it too late for us to ban Ken Ham and Ray Comfort? Let's throw in Kent Hovind too.

 

[Nakosis]

Not only that. Countries can do so as well. Another US pastor has been banned by perhaps a record thirty-four countries.

Steven Anderson Gets Banned By Another Country

Graham can at least visit England.

EDIT: Is it too late for us to ban Ken Ham and Ray Comfort? Let's throw in Kent Hovind too.

Fair enough. Personally I'm not afraid of ideas.
Always surprises me how easily influenced some folks are. So even though I think it a bit drastic, I have to acknowledge a need for such measures.

 

[Nakosis]

You do not understand what "freedom of speech" means.

Actually I just didn't understand your sentence. Certainly not trying to restrict you right to say it though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see de-platforming as a free speech issue.

I don't. Nobody is entitled to a speaking venue, so being denied access to a speaking venue doesn't infringe on their right to free speech.

Free speech rights are entirely about being free from government and legal restrictions on speech. If the government were to require newspapers or bloggers to have licenses, for instance, that would be a free speech issue.

 

[Augustus]

I can't "make peace" with an ideology that desires me to be eliminated.

Because you're unable to see why your attitude enables and emboldens murder and thus threatens my very existence.

He believes homosexuality is an abomination to be "repentant of", and supports conversion therapy.

How would you say this qualitatively differs from New Atheist speakers saying things like 'religion is child abuse', 'raising a child religious is arguably worse than them being mildly sexually abused', 'religion is the greatest evil in human history', 'religion is mental illness', 'if I could eliminate religion or rape, I'd eliminate religion', etc.

While it is true that, at this point in time, there are not really any atheist extremists committing hate crimes, there certainly have been in history, and there certainly could be again.

Why is the typical Christian fundie nonsense any worse than saying religious people are mentally ill child abusers who are complicit in a greater evil than rape?