Alberta, Canada Candidate Warns Gays Will Face Eternal Hellfire, Accepting Them is ‘Cruel and Not Loving’


Alberta, Canada's conservative Wildrose party is under fire after comments written by Allan Hunsperger, a pastor who's running as a candidate there, warned LGBT people that they will "suffer the rest of eternity in the lake of fire, hell, a place of eternal suffering."

Allan_hunspergerAdded Hunsperger, in remarks responding to Gaga's "Born This Way" CD: “Accepting people the way they are is cruel and not loving.”

You can read the comments above, or here.

Progressive Conservative Party Leader and Premier Alison Redford reacted immediately to the comments, the Star reports:

With only one week left before the election, Redford wasted no time joining in the condemnation of the comments that quickly spread to social media.

“The fact that there are people who think that’s a legitimate perspective just absolutely blows my mind,” Redford told reporters at a Calgary campaign stop. I think they’re shocking and I think it goes back to Albertans are about to decide who is going to govern their province. They are going to have to decide who their premier is. They’re going to have to decide who the cabinet is,” she added. “If we have people like this making these sorts of comments in Alberta I think it’s absolutely wrong and of course I disagree with it.”

Alberta Wildrose Party leader Danielle Smith refused to condemn Hunsperger:

Asked about the writing, Smith noted the party won’t legislate on such social issues but said Hunsperger was free to hold his personal views.

“When a person is making personal statements in their capacity as a pastor, which he was, I don’t think anybody should be surprised that they’re expressing certain viewpoints,” she said outside a Wildrose photo opportunity at the Calgary Hindu Society’s temple.

“It was a year ago when he was talking in his capacity as a pastor. He now understands, we’ve spoken, we’ve communicated on this, that we will not be legislating on contentious social issues. He understands that. He accepts that.”

Hunsperger responded: “The views I expressed in this blog posting are my own personal religious views and were given in the capacity as a church pastor. I fully support equality for all people, and condemn any intolerance based on sexual orientation or any other personal characteristic.”


  1. Daniel Berry, NYC says

    well, Ms Self-Righteous Prig, if you’re the type of people in the other place, I’m willing to risk the lake of fire.

  2. Gigi says

    Sadly, we have them in Canada too. It’s just that here these nutjobs aren’t invited on natuonal television and allowed to spew their hate unchallenged like Tony Perkins is on MSNBC in the United States.

  3. Chadd says

    “I fully support equality for all people, and condemn any intolerance based on sexual orientation or any other personal characteristic.” BUT, your very existence is an abomination to God and you are going to burn in hell for all of eternity. Said with all love and respect of course.

  4. ratbastard says


    It’s called free speech. You can’t be charged with a criminal offense, arrested, for saying ‘mean’ things in America, at worse you could be civilly sued for defamation, very difficult to prove/win. In essence, the Canadian government[s] simply have greater control over the population than the U.S. federal and state governments have over people here. To make matters worse [IMO] Canada has ‘Human Rights Tribunals’ that are extra-judicial and have the legally authority to force people to accept their decisions. Even comedians have been ‘convicted’ by these so-called ‘Human Rights Tribunals’. Creepy if you ask me.

    There are many people in Canada who probably agree with him or maybe don’t but are against stuff like gay marriage, etc. It’s just that because of Canadian laws regarding ‘hate’ speech and the way the political system operates in Canada, most of these people are on the DL. But they’re there. I’m sure Canada and Canadian gays would survive fine if this loon was allowed to have his say. Whatever private organization he belongs to of course should be allowed to treat the matter as they please.

  5. says

    He was allowed to have his say. He said it, it’s all over the media. He may receive a political slap on the wrist for being such an idiot, but it’s not like he’ll be tossed in jail.

    And now others are using their free speech rights to condemn him or, in the case of the Conservative Party Leader, save political face. People are free to be against marriage equality in Canada, but since it’s settled law and politically popular, no sane politician is going to wade back into those waters.

    In the US (and I fully support American free speech) the right wing speaks out against gay people not just because they have the free speech right to do so, but because it’s politically safe for them. Once it becomes a political disadvantage, as it has in most NE states, you won’t hear wise politicians going near the topic.

  6. Gigi says

    @RATBASTARD I didn’t say anything about charging this gentleman for his odious statements. Did you ready my comment?
    Hunsperger said what he said and the leader of his party, Danielle Smith, refused to condemn him, noting “…the party won’t legislate on such social issues but said Hunsperger was free to hold his personal views.” I support his right to say whatever he wants. What I said in my comment is that we don’t have people like Tony Perkins (or Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry or…) invited onto a national television who are allowed to say hateful untruths about gay people and then go unchallenged. MSNBC invited Perkins on at least once a month and he’s allowed to lie about gay people and because he’s on a “news” station/show it adds legitimacy to his lies.

  7. says

    I make no clain of having any absolute or otherwise knowledge of the existence of a God or Satan, Heaven or Hell. I can only control how I live my life while here on earth and hope things work out for the best. Once I pass from this life, whether that means going back to the nothingness of my pre-existence on this planet, or it means moving to a new stage of existence in whatever form that may take, I know for sure I do not want to spend that next existence in the presence of people like Mr. Allan Hunsperger and his ilk.

    Should I find myself amongst their kind I will have to conclude that I, in fact, went to hell. Nothing they can threaten me with brings me more consternation than the thought of spending an eternity with the likes of these people.

    In the end they should get what they deserve, and if there truly is a deity in the sky, I believe these people are in for a rude awakening come judgement day.

  8. TampaZeke says

    @RATBASTARD, there you go tilting at windmills again; arguing against a point that nobody made.

  9. ratbastard says


    Didn’t say you did, I extrapolated to make a larger point. I’ve no doubt there are many who post here who would love to have ‘Human Rights Tribunals’ and censored free speech when it comes to anti-gay stuff.

  10. Michael in Toronto says

    The Tea Party comes to Canada. (sigh) How chilling. And they’re currently ahead.

  11. says

    Not really a larger point to be made here. He freely spouted his anti-gay nonsense and is now being freely criticized for his idiocy. That’s how free speech is supposed to work. It was really about politics and not speech anyway, just as it would be in the US.

  12. Spraypaintedgold says

    I have it on good authority that due to overcrowding, Hell will be releasing souls for good behavior.

  13. Hue-Man says

    IMHO, this far-right homophobe doesn’t have to worry about hate speech or human rights tribunals based on what he wrote. The so-called comedian, on the other hand, attacked two lesbian audience members and made things worse by releasing a video.

    As for the American definition of free speech, how many people would be in jail if Shameless were broadcast uncensored over the air in a U.S. city? (

  14. Peter M. says

    “I fully support equality for all people, and condemn any intolerance based on sexual orientation or any other personal characteristic”… and at the same time he says that “Accepting people the way they are is cruel and not loving.”, so he advocates for intolerance and discrimination against gay people.
    Typical hypocritical BS from the “Christian” gay hater club.

  15. Symon says

    Alberta is Canada’s Mississippi, but the good news is that every news outlet, even the more conservative ones in Canada, are calling out the insanity of this man and his attempt at a party.

  16. D.R.H. says

    As an Albertan, I want to say a few things: firstly, the reason the Wild Rose are ahead is not because Albertans support these clowns and their moral crusade, but rather, their exhaustion with the Progressive Conservatives; a party that has been virtually unopposed for 40 years and, as of late, has become almost entirely feckless and incapable.

    Albertans are so tired of having no representation in government. In addition to this there has been rampant scandal and corruption. It’s time the PCs are thrown out on their heads. The Wild Rose party has done a good job of painting themselves as a libertarian alternative, intent on strengthening the economy, making government more transparent and respecting established civil liberties. They’ve gone to great length to cover up their real nature by keeping their image very guarded and polished. It has only been recently that several of its members have been uncovered for what they really are. Sadly, I think it’s too close to the election to make a difference.

    I don’t have a lot of pride for my home except for some of its natural beauty. It’s a bit backward and barbaric but I do know that these politicians do not represent most my fellow Albertans. I think, yet again, we’ve been duped by greedy and power hungry politicians more interested in personal gain than noble service. We just wanted a change and the Wild Rose made great promises but I fear that we’ll only get more of the same.

  17. Rafa says


    Re: “Religion is poison” … Not so simple.

    Pastor Brent Hawkes, of the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto (a progressive, gay-positive church) is partly responsible for gay marriage being legal in Canada. He later was awarded Canada’s highest civillian honour (the Order of Canada) for this civil rights work.

    “On January 14, 2001, Hawkes gained national attention by performing a wedding ceremony for two same-sex couples at the Metropolitan Community Church.[2] Although city clerks would not issue marriage licenses for same-sex marriages at this time, Hawkes employed the alternative provided in Ontario law for regular church attendees to publish official banns for three consecutive weeks, and thereby conducted a legal marriage without requiring prior government permission[3][dead link]. In the spirit of the banns as a public opportunity for interested parties to raise legal objections, the church also issued a press release in late 2000 announcing its intentions. The government of Jean Chrétien did not endorse the marriages, although Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson sent a personal letter of support. The city clerk refused to register the record of marriage, leading to a court battle. On July 12, 2002, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the marriages performed by Hawkes in January 2001 were legal, but stayed its decision pending a possible appeal, and on June 10, 2003, the Court of Appeal for Ontario declared the common law definition of marriage as “invalid to the extent that it refers to “one man and one woman” [Halpern et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada et al.], immediately striking down all barriers against same-sex marriage in the province (Court of Appeal for Ontario)”

  18. Matt says

    You know, he’s right. He CAN’T get away with being a hateful bigot. Therefore, I vow to change people like you, because leaving you the way you were “born” is indeed cruel and unloving.

  19. Randal Oulton says

    @ Ratbastard:

    The American perception of “rights” is v. different from that of most other Western, first-world countries. America is a country of extremes, which is part of what makes it interesting for sure!!! And it focusses extremely on individual rights.

    In other Western, first-world countries such as Canada, we instead are constantly weighing and balancing individual rights against community rights — I think the community rights concept is alien to American policy and law, but it’s not to other countries.

    I personally believe in a balance of the two rights, leaning towards individual in most instances, but I’d never favour an ethos of individual rights only outweighing everything else in society.

    Your system is great and works for you, so hey, more power to you. A more balanced approach works for most other Western, First World countries, so, everyone’s happy.

  20. says

    The beauty of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Happy Anniversary, BTW!) is that it makes a discerning, explicit intellectual process of understanding distinctions of hate speech.

    Cliff’sNotesVersion: if your right to say something comes at the expense of your “targets” rights to freedom and safety then one must weigh what matters more. it’s not about unpopular speech, it’s specifically and explicitly dissecting and understanding where a person’s “right” to say something specific comes with a greater ‘threat’ to the safety and wellbeing of the speaker’s target.

  21. chad says

    The term progressive, gay-positive church is ridiculous to me. The fact that the bible can be interpreted to both accept and condemn gays just proves the entire book is worthless fiction.

    There’s too much to get into on this subject for a comment board but I do stand by what I said.

  22. says

    i think one aspect you may be overlooking, Chad, is that to tell a religious person to simple “get over it, give it up, drop it, it aint real” simply will not work. at all.

    as much as a lot of us want it to.

    but here’s a reality – the second-largest religious denomination in Canada is the United Church of Canada. I was lucky enough to be brought up in it – with an openly-gay minister. followed by an openly-lesbian one, in a congregation that (at the time) didn’t have ANY openly-gay members. that changed – first two adult women came out, and then me in my teens. The UCC has been on the forefront of LGBT Equality for decades in Canada, and not just as a “Christian” voice – but a Humanist one; a religious denomination that does not promote dogma in any way, and does not make any claims to being any “one true faith” – merely one valued outlet, of many, for those who seek a spiritual side of life.

    while i’m not longer a deist, i can truthfully look back and say that there was nothing in the Christianity that i was brought up with that gives me, or has ever given me, a moral pause – it’s modern secular humanism, using the story of Christ as a means of communicating messages from long ago to today.

    my beleaguered point – progressive religious insitutions are a much-needed tool to help “wean” people off of conservative Christianity. my church of my childhood was made up of so many people who’d left other denominations when they realized that there was indeed a place of “faith” that gave them all the Good with none of the Bigoted Bad.

    so, as much as one may want to scoff at all religions, or the idea of a progressive gay-positive church, the reality is that they’re actually doing a needed job in offering people an alternative to the “Christianity” they’ve been previously exposed to.

    think about it – would you truly rather there only be Hellfire Congregations?

    oh, and the bible cannot actually be interpreted to condemn gays, it can only be misinterpreted as thus if the (mis)interpreter has a specific anti-gay agenda and chooses to throw out all knowledge of Historical Context and the history of languages.

    the bible, truthfully, doesn’t mention homosexuality even once.

  23. says

    it’s not spin. it’s education and historical context.
    Levitical laws were in place to keep tribal numbers high. that’s why things that would lead to tribal numbers dwindling are labeled “sin” – the dietary rules drive this point home.

    Levitical laws are also irrelevant to Christians, as (theologically speaking) Christ’s sacrifice on the cross delivers “us” from having to follow Levitical Law – this is why NO levitical laws are followed by any modern-gay Christians. Simply put – for a Christian to cite Levitical law in any capacity is for that Christian to essentially declare that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was a complete failure.

    There’s also the reality that the old testament was never meant to be taken literally. at all. Jews knew this, and continue to know this; that’s why they also have the Talmud.

    it’s only some Christian denominations that insist that the old testament is a book to be taken literally – Judaism knew better, as well it should – it’s a Judaic book. the reason some denominations of Christianity hypocritically (and, truthfully, anti-theologically) insist on a literalist reading of the old testament is because it contains passages that they feel they can use to best control their flocks. which they do.

    But this is not “spin” – it’s historical context. knowledge of world history, world religions, and the evolution of language.

    you show me a leviticus-citing Christian and i’ll show you a shellfish-eater who hasn’t read the bible, but has only been dictated to from it by a preacher.

    this message has been brought to you by an anti-deist who studied world religions and theology at university. you’re welcome.

  24. Mary says

    This Hunsperger may be anti-gay in his theology, but has made it clear that he is not anti-gay politically. And of course we know why. It has nothing to do with Canadian “hate crime” laws………. This guy has to share a nation with Little Kiwi. I mean he may be a cultural conservative, but hey, he’s not insane!

    Nuff said! (just kidding, Raymond!)

  25. jack says

    @kiwi: I studied Philosophy and Theology at a university for 6 years and I say what you have stated is a lot of spin. Words have meaning. Ancient Israelites considered homosexuality an abomination. So do many “old testament” believing Jews today. Of course many bible believing christians treat the bible like a cafeteria, they pick out the items they want and ignore the rest. The world would be a better place if we ignored the entire collection of myths called the bible.

  26. Michael says

    Hold on.

    Christ called gay men born eunuchs in Matthew, born from their mother’s womb that way.

    As for Leviticus, the term translated to “as with” means bed every other time its used in Leviticus and Paul was specifically referring to that passage when writing the clobber passage in Corinthians and he states ‘male bed’. Leviticus 15 gives a long list of bed issues too. The translators knew a passage that said a man shall not lay with another male on a woman’s bed couldn’t be used as a weapon and thus changed it. It’s a pity they weren’t smart enough to change Corinthians too nor quick enough to change the meaning more than twice in Leviticus.

  27. says

    wrong. but that’s to be expected.

    Ancient Israelites did not “consider homosexuality a sin” as homosexuality is a sexual orientation that was not understood at the time.

    What you will find are condemnations of specific physical acts, yet not the orientation. it’s worth nothing the two boldest declarations of Love in the bible are expressed between two pairs of same-sex “couples”, if you will. Ruth & Naomie, Jonathan & David.

    all you’ve done is reveal the same thing – your desire to argue with me is stronger than your ability to do so intelligently. quel surprise.
    your post reveals that you’re lying, unless the 6 years you spent at university were spent skipping every single class. you reveal a complete lack of understanding about a subject you otherwise want people to believe you studied for 6 years.

    “The world would be a better place if we ignored the entire collection of myths called the bible.”

    re-read my initial post to Chad. You sitting there wishing the rest of the world would just suddenly ignore the bible will do nothing. That will never happen. That’s why there’s a much-needed place for progressive religious denominations.

    It’s also worth nothing that Prop 8 was opposed by the Jewish community more than any other demographic in California.

  28. Michael says

    Jack, it appears you have an agenda going on. If you knew anything at all about the Old Testament you would know what the two codes were, what they actually dealt with and who they were meant for.

    You know what’s odd is if the ancients viewed homosexuality as immoral it would seem we would have at least one concrete scripture that condemns gay people but all five or six passages never condemned homosexuality in the original text.

    Something tells me you’re full if it or you would know this.

  29. Michael says

    Kiwi, you might want to do some more research since the passages don’t condemn sexual acts as you’re suggesting.

  30. jack says

    @Michael: We all have agendas. Certainly one of mine is to get people to take that collection of myths, made up history and wicked deeds of the Israelite god yahweh, called the bible and consign it to the trash heap of history.Live free of these ancient myths rather than trying to rationalize them.

  31. says

    there isn’t a single passage in the bible condemning homosexuality. there are more than a few than condemn acts of pederasty, rape, sexual slavery, and the practice of male soldiers raping other male soldiers (thus making them their “woman”, an insult at the time).

  32. Mary says

    Kiwi, while I’m no Bible expert, I know that you are way off base on Ruth and Naomi. They were mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. They had a relationship – they were family. Ruth’s husband and her son (Naomi’s late husband) were dead and all these two women had for family was each other. But they were not sexually involved. In fact, Naomi tried to get Ruth to go back to her biological family so that presumably she could find another husband. She even tells Ruth that even if she Naomi were to have more sons, Ruth would have to wait years for them to be of marriage-age.

    People can love each other without having a sexual connection.

  33. Michael says


    Many believe Ruth and Naomi were lovers…

    And Kiwi, you really need to research those passages a bit more since they in no way condemn any gay sex act.

  34. Michael says

    Jack, instead of throwing your hands in the air and trying dismiss the Bible as bull because you don’t believe in God, it would make more sense to know what the original text stated and what it did not because the best weapon to use against fundamentalist is the Bible itself.

  35. happyday says

    I took a holiday at the Lake of Fire, and let me tell you it was marvelous! Insider tip: don’t miss the mud baths.

  36. jack says

    @Michael: No one knows if this billion gallaxy universe has a creator or not. What I am certain of is that if such a being exists it had nothing to do with the bible or any of the man made religions. All of these man made religions are childish nonsense in comparison to the splendor of the billion gallaxy universe.

  37. St. Theresa of Avila says

    LOL Artie. With some of these bozos, even a single picture speaks a thousand words. He’s also kinda channeling Liberace with that expression.

    To me this is sort of becoming the freakin’ meme of the decade: those that scream the loudest have the most to hide.

  38. says

    the ridiculous thing is that those who cite Leviticus are all-too-quick to dismiss literally every other levitical law. just as those who claim to favor “biblical definitions of marriage” are all too quick to ignore the ACTUAL BIBLICAL DEFINITIONS OF MARRIAGE – you know, where a woman has to marry her rapist, where a woman gets stoned to death if she’s not a virgin when she marries, where a woman MUST carry her brother-in-law’s baby if her husband dies before she has a child with him, and most perfectly where a woman becomes a man’s property and must always be obedient to him.

    why does THAT get ignored? simple – because it would affect straight people. let’s focus, instead, on what we think it says about The Gay.

    which aint anything, really.

    @michael – the sex acts that are condemned are not explicit, this is what i’m talking about when i say historical context. for example, the new testament mistranslations that lead one to think Paul wrote about “homosexuals” – which makes no sense, as the term and awareness of the term are 20th century ones. it was not referring to homosexuals, nor “gays”, not anything other than sexual slavery between males. amazing how that gets spun.

  39. mmmmm says

    How many egocenetrics does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
    One holds the lightbulb, and expects the world to revolve around them!
    Why is there Christian evangelism and advertising on this really wierd gay sight?????????????????

  40. says

    ” The guilty don’t determine their fair sentence; the Judge determines the sentence. It is only ours to take our punishment or run to the Savior.”
    no amount of public opinion can change the stance of the Holy Scriptures. If you refuse to believe and accept Christ now, when you get there (Hell), then you will not only believe, you will accept the Judgement of the Righteous God…