It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Griff
Your argument, IMO, is not misguided but I believe it is false. By that, I mean that I believe the Philly 11 should have just been "detained" and set free somewhere else away from the festival. If they returned, then they should be arrested. Did this happen at all? Or where they just arrested on site?
In order to maintain our freedom of religion and speech, RA has chosen not to be a state registered 501(c)(3), so please contact your tax adviser for information on donations made to aid in missions work.
Originally posted by Icarus Rising
You are trying to say two wrongs make a right. You are in favor of bias against the religious.
You are just as bad as the religious folk who have mistreated your precious gay people for so long. Good on you.
Originally posted by Icarus Rising
reply to post by Annee
At OJ's trial they would have called this jury nullification. It is a form of the fallacious "two wrongs make a right" argument. With perspectives such as this becoming the norm, it is no wonder the US is going down the tubes.
[edit on 21-7-2008 by Icarus Rising]
this is a secular government or is supposed to be. And has been abused for years by a Christian strangle hold. That hold is now being fractured and shattered in all areas of justice. As it should be.
These protesters were by intention aggressive - hateful - abusive - and uncooperative to authorities.
If justice is teetering on a tightrope of who is guilty - - I happily push each and every Christian who was there off the tightrope - - and they can pray there is a net.
Originally posted by Icarus Rising
There is no "Christian stranglehold" that has abused the government for years.
Originally posted by Icarus Rising
You can't support this from the evidence. But you are welcome to your self delusions, as are we all.
The civil rights complaint then followed.
“While, in its decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit did ultimately side with the city of Philadelphia, it did make some important rulings which should serve to support the rights of Christians to speak in the public square. In its decision, the appeals court rejected U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence F. Stengel’s decision from earlier this year in which he ruled that the Philadelphia 11 should have been prohibited from engaging in their constitutional rights on the public streets and sidewalks because ‘once the City issued a permit to Philly Pride for OutFest, it was empowered to enforce the permit by excluding persons expressing contrary messages,’” Repent America said.
Repent America said the appeals court found that despite the fact that the event organizers had a permit, the Philadelphia 11 had a constitutionally protected right to be present on the public streets and sidewalks within the event area and convey their message.
The court’s justification for supporting police actions against the Christians was based on “the court’s perception that the Philadelphia 11 were ‘disrupting the event,’” the organization said. “The court came to this conclusion even though the Christians were not charged, arrested or even threatened with arrest for being ‘disruptive.’”
Originally posted by Clearskies
It's REALLY hard to find anything in mainstream news!
Why does anyone need a permit for free speech?
Especially if it's a small, non-violent group?
Originally posted by Clearskies
Here's something from conWebBlog