No, I don’t think that’s what it means. Because in your example it’s not an allegation, the person is downright expressing that the other person should be KILLED over their sexual orientation. That’s hate speech. And if there’s a record of those words, that’s proof right there of hate speech. Legally speaking, there’s no proving thoughts and beliefs. You need evidence of actions, and if an action is consistent with the allegations, then that’s your proof. But you cannot make allegations based on assumptions and your own prejudices regarding another person’s beliefs.
I think it’s more along the lines that if a gay couple wants to have their wedding in a venue and they’re rejected and given a reason for that’s not linked to their sexual orientation, they cannot use the fact that the owners are conservative Christian as proof of an allegation that they’re really being discriminated against. That is an assumption one shouldn’t be entitled to make. If you think that the owners are lying and actually being discriminating, then you need more evidence than just their beliefs. And I’m sorry, but I think that’s fair. I’m a small time caterer, sometimes I have to say no based on the fact that I won’t have the time to do a particular request. If it happens to be a gay couple that I have to turn away, they could turn around and accuse me of discrimination just based on the fact that I’m an Orthodox Jew? How is that fair to my or my business reputation? If they don’t believe me, then they should find proof that the reason I gave them is a lie. I shouldn’t be labeled and possibly face legal repercussions just because of my beliefs.
I know these aren’t journalism oriented examples, but it’s just to illustrate why a person’s beliefs can’t and shouldn’t be used as proof of discrimination if they’re not accompanied by actions that corroborate it. And to accuse another person of discrimination without more proof than their beliefs should be considered defamation.
Aletheia wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 3:08 am
Have a read of HB 991: Defamation, False Light, and Unauthorized Publication of Name or Likenesses
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2 ... illHistory
On page 6 it says:
(a) A defendant cannot prove the truth of an allegation of discrimination with respect to sexual orientation or gender identity by citing a plaintiff's constitutionally protected religious expression or beliefs.
(b) A defendant cannot prove the truth of an allegation of discrimination with respect to sexual orientation or gender identity by citing a plaintiff's scientific beliefs.
What would that mean in plain language, if it passed?
It means that if SusieRainbow posts online about getting married next month to another woman and BobTheWanker posts "SusieRainbow deserves to be killed because she is homosexual." then if she replies "Bob, please don't ruin my discussion of the happy day with homophobia.", Bob can sue Susie for calling him a homophobe and win a minimum of $35,000 in damages.
Note: Susie can't use Bob actually being a homophobe in her defence. She has to show that Bob did not make that particular comment because Bob believes in a religion which teaches that (or, rather, that Bob interprets that way).
MORE INFO
עמ׳ ישראל חי 
