Anti-gay pastor goes into a meltdown after paypal account gets shut down

[davidn3600]

An Arizona pastor known for his virulently anti-LGBT views went on a podium-stomping tirade recently after businesses began cutting off their services to his and other bigoted pastors’ churches, the Friendly Atheist reports.

Pastor Steven Anderson, who heads the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Phoenix, Arizona, lashed out this week at activists who successfully petitioned businesses like PayPal and Apple to shut down his accounts after his hate speech. While Anderson posted his June 22 sermon on a website called Archive, the Friendly Atheist uploaded a sampling to YouTube.

After the June 12 massacre at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Anderson posted a video in which he said there are “50 less pedophiles” in the world. Forty-nine people were killed in the mass shooting at the gay nightclub.

Anderson has been reaping the consequences of his words, and he is not happy about it.

“It’s war. You know what the filthy sodomites have done toward our church and us, and our friends and our fellow pastors that actually have the guts to say what needs to be said? Here’s what they’ve done in the last few weeks,” he told his congregation. “They got our PayPal account shut down so that we can’t take anymore online donations. We set up with another company, GivLet, they got that shut down. Qgiv, they got that shut down. BitPay, they got that shut down. They shut down our iTunes podcast. They shut down Brother Jimenez’s PayPal account. They shut down Brother Romero’s PayPal account… The landlord of Pastor Jimenez is saying, ‘hey we’re not going to renew your lease.'”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/kill-the-gays-pastor-has-a-pulpit-stomping-meltdown-after-hes-booted-from-online-fundraising/

[Rex]

1. well....awwwwwwww

[herding cats]

2. That's how you fight hate speech in the US!

By using your voice to overcome it.

Now, it that "church" is tax exempt, which I assume it is, needs to be scrutinized. It's a hate group, plain and simple and needs to be listed, and taxed, as such.

[Hortensis]

11. I'm not actually sure I approve. What if he'd been

preaching (insert your ideology) message? We're not talking mom-and-pop businesses here but giant corporations that are part of American life.

How would we feel if Apple expressed disapproval of Bernie activists at the convention by labeling their demonstrations against the party something or other and shutting down their accounts?

Now things like GoFundMe and Facebook I can see, Paypal if used to raise funds for this behavior. Most would feel they have an ethical responsibility not to enable fraud and hate crimes.

Is there any law that prevents a giant corporation like Apple or Amazon from interfering with the free speech of a nation?

[herding cats]

15. If you're actively preaching that gays should be killed,

If you praised the murders of 49 people because you support the hate filled motivation of the killer...

If you said the 130 people who were murdered in Paris in 2015 deserved it because they were sinful...

If you're designated a hate group by the SPLC...

You take your chances that private business may not want to be associated with you.

If those private business have clauses which say you cannot use them to spread hate speech, that's their right. If they over step that right they'll end up in court. That's how our system works.

[Hortensis]

16. That wasn't my question. Herding Cats, CEO Dog doesn't

like you at all, in fact despises all cats as loathsome perversions of nature Okay to refuse to let you shop in any of his 14 national chains of supermarkets? As a matter of highest dog principle?

[herding cats]

23. I understand, but that's not what's taking place here.

It's a violation of the TOS which they had to agree to to use the service in the first place.

It's not that any retailer is denying them a right to purchase anything. They're denying them an online service for violating the rules they set in place.

[Hortensis]

25. That wasn't brought out initially, and the blanket

approval of corporate action without knowing that legal justification is why I asked. Btw, what if the TOS said clearly that none of the supermarket chains would sell to cats or allow them to enter the premises for any reason? Of course our laws don't allow that behavior against people.

It's all just a thought--that maybe we shouldn't leap to approve actions against someone just because we don't like him. Especially when the actions are those of an extremely powerful corporation selling its products in over 100 nations like Apple.

[herding cats]

27. That's not what took place here.

It's not a retail store, it's an online global service with a TOS, and a reputation to protect.

They're more than welcome to sue them for this, but in this case they violated the terms of service and it's highly unlikely they'd win. It's the same with their YouTube channel, they know if they post their hate speech there it's going to be taken down, and eventually they'll no longer be allowed to use the service.

We're not talking cats and dogs here. We're talking advocating the death of other people. There's potential legal blowback on the service provider if they provide them a venue for such, if someone acts on it and commits a crime.

[Hortensis]

33. Okay, and I feel I've beat this battered dog enough.

[NutmegYankee]

17. Most of those fundraising organizations have Terms of Service that prohibit this type of activity.

In this case, this "Church" is in violation of the contractual user agreement, and that's why the accounts were shut down. I don't consider this a violation of free speech - the website had clear terms of service that the user agreed to to use it, and they violated them. Use of this service was in no way mandated nor required.

[Hortensis]

18. Excellent point! Violated the terms of service.

A simple business contract argument I can get behind.

I'm still waiting for one of these people to come along, though, and say why giant international corporations judging our non-business-related behaviors against their own arbitrary moral standards and deciding what behaviors they will allow from their customers is a good thing.

People who normally spit out the word corporation with a hiss, even though it has no sibilants, are more than fine with this.

[NutmegYankee]

19. The law is a little more strict on brick and mortar businesses in this regard.

The business has to show a compelling reason to ban someone, such as acts of theft. Otherwise the person is just "shopping for groceries" like everyone else and there is no actual association between person and business. Private organizations can limit their membership as they see fit, but a business by virtue of the license (regulation of business is fundamental power of any legislature) must serve the public equally. There are some rules they can apply, such as dress codes, but they have to be equal.

In the PayPal, etc cases, the business was clearly associated and using PayPal for taking in funds, which in many minds links PayPal to what the business/organization is saying.

[Hortensis]

24. Thanks for the framework, Nutmeg. I was pretty

sure Paypal's position would be related to funding these activities.

However, some who leapt right in to approve these actions clearly gave no thought to such issues, simply approved slapping down the miscreant. My question was just intended to raise a question in seemingly unquestioning minds of why, when, and how we should be allowing corporations to slap us down and if we should have some limits on their rights to do so.

I have jury duty next month. Last time it was a complete kangaroo court with all the regular jurors (I was the alternate) endorsing clearly illegal activities, including obviously (even in one case admitted) false testimony by the DA's office, police, and criminal lab. The fact that they completely failed to make their case was also deemed irrelevant. Oh, boy. Can't wait.

[NutmegYankee]

29. Unfortunately others are not always as strong in their core values on these topics.

I'm a strong Civil Libertarian and Egalitarian, which used to be standard components of Liberalism. In some cases today though politics has turned into a type of tribalism where it's all OK if our side does it and not OK if the other side does it. Also, roughly 35% of the population doesn't really support Liberal Democracy, so they prefer to accept social hierarchies or corruption as natural and acceptable.

Here's a frightening article: http://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2015/12/18/9360663/is-democracy-in-trouble

[Hortensis]

30. With you 100%, NutYank.

(Surely I'm not the first for that, right?)

ANOTHER frightening article? Seems they're all over these days. I'm going to go get a glass of wine and then read it. It may not be entirely comforting, but fwiw those people were always part of us and we've survived this long.

[Aristus]

32. I think you're misunderstanding the concept of free speech, as detailed in the First

Amendment.

The government cannot abridge the freedom of speech (minus certain obvious exceptions, such as libel, or threatening the President).

A private corporation can do whatever it wants to do in the situation. Anyway, PayPal, and other companies, are not abridging this hamhock's freedom of speech; they're just not going to do business with him anymore. He can continue saying any damned hateful thing he wants to.

[Surya Gayatri]

3. Delicious blow back. Bwaahaaaaa! Hate speech is free, but can have far-reaching consequences.

[Rex]

4. I guess dumbass thought 'free speech' meant private business too.

Karma.

[sakabatou]

5. *brings out my Planck-scale violin*

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Just a general PSA

This is the 3rd or 4th posting of this information. I don't have an issue with that, but I do have some issues and concerns with things said in regards to this article/video.

So, PSA...

Not all MALE homophobes are "secretly" gay! Many MALE homophobes are simply homophobic assholes. PERIOD. While there are certainly homophobes who are struggling with accepting/understanding their own sexuality, to imply, every time (or in general) that male homophobes are really does a disservice to gay and bisexual men and allows heterosexual homophobes "off the hook." Me, personally, I find the "he's probably a homo" remarks as disgusting, disrespectable and degrading as I do male prison rape jokes. Assuming a male homophobe is a "secret" gay is just as bad as saying "That's so gay" when you mean something is bad, because essentially people are saying there is something wrong with gay/bi men and ignores the heterosexism and homophobia we, as gay people, deal with on a continuous basis.

This man is a hate-filled asshole who is homophobic. Speculating on his sexuality adds nothing to the discussion.

[Tree-Hugger]

28. +1 nt

[Roy Rolling]

7. Unique ministry

His method of proselytizing is to tell people to get the hell out of his "church". If they are dumb enough to stay despite being abused, they pass the loyalty test.

[Old Crow]

8. The more I see video footage like this...

... the more I'm convinced that organized religion is on its way out.

No offense to those out there who are members of a more enlightened church, but that's just the way I see it. Religion and religious fervor are passions that are accessible to those who have done nothing to develop their reason or get educations. It often caters to a tribal, atavistic, Us versus Them mentality. On a weekly basis, I see ignorant blowhards who have done nothing, and I mean NOTHING, to improve themselves: but they can talk your ears off about how filled they are with the Holy Spirit. Whoopee.

Humanity's path forward has been, and is, one of reason and education and tolerance. If humanity manages to survive the next 500 years, I really don't see much of a place for organized religion.

[Socal31]

9. The problem is that this isn't about religion any more than ISIS is.

Religion is used as the vessel to get the "believers" to act a certain way.

In fundamentalist Islam, it is to reject Western values, and seek retribution for perceived injustices through violence. It is about recruiting young impoverished men to give their life for jihad.

In fundamentalist Christianity, it is to vote in like-minded politicians, spread their version of worship, and most importantly, keep putting money in that basket every month.

Both are misogynistic, homophobic, and hateful, although one is far worse than the other currently.

Point being although extremism may be on the way out, I don't see all organized religion suffering the same fate.

[left-of-center2012]

10. Too bad, so sad

[merrily]

12. Obviously, it's God's will that he not have a paypal account.

Pastors, of all people, should accept God's will with grace.

[Lee-Lee]

13. I love how these assholes all throw the "victim" card as soon as folks sever ties

And declare it all must be a conspiracy against them.

[King_David]

14. Nice

[geomon666]

20. It's a shame we can't shut down the collection plate too.

Pray to God to open a new account for you, fuckhead. See how far that gets you.

[Just reading posts]

21. Freedom of religion.

As repugnant as this asshole is, he has the right to preach this nonsense and encourage others to support him.

[geomon666]

34. Absolutely

He has the right to say whatever he wants to whomever will listen to him and that should never change.

[3catwoman3]

22. Well, ain't that a shame.

[tonyt53]

26. It sucks to be YOU, Steve. So much for the teachings of Jesus being allowed in church.

[struggle4progress]

31. ... his disciples James and John said, “Lord, do you want us to command fire

to come down from heaven and consume them?” But he turned and rebuked them and said, “You do not know what spirit you are of, for the Son of Man has not come to destroy the lives of human beings but to save them” ...

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%209