Court says 'gay' rights trump Christian rights

reply to post by TheRedneck


I understand that someone "just saying so" is proof enough for a devout christian.

Fortunately, I need something a little more than a glorified blog making an unsubstantiated statement that just happens to back the obvious agenda of its authors.

Until you can find at least one mention of the public funding in a 3rd party news source (ie. not a christian blog or christian news site,) then I am calling bull# on the whole thing. If it was truly publicly funded, why can't I find a single photocopy or online document from the city's own records? Cities tend to keep very precise records of where they spend money so records of this event shouldn't be too hard to come by - if it is true.

Until such proof is presented the whole story is nothing more than a couple of sore losers, who don't understand what disturbing the peace means, making wild accusations while offering nothing but hot air.

Jon

reply to post by TheRedneck


Actually, "THEY" did not pay for it - the Outfest - or anything else bought out of the public treasury. That issue was dealt with long ago and the courts have always held that once the money is collected (taxes) it is no longer "YOUR" money but is now "OUR" money. This came up during the Vietnam War when some people withheld the part of their taxes they had calculated was destined for the War. "Ownership does not follow money after it is in the hands of the US Government" said the courts. Such a system wold not work.

So, while they - anti-gay protesters - may "FEEL" they paid for the Outfest, legally speaking, they did not.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Yeah, I get that. They had every right to attend. Absolutely. To attend. Not to bust in and INTERRUPT, OVERTAKE and attempt to SILENCE the event. They were infringing on the rights of those assembled gays.

According to the OP, which is what we're discussing, it is clear the Pink Angels were the aggressors. That said I admit these may be biased sources; show me something that says they were interfering with the rights of the gays and I will rethink my opinion.

And I would support any group whose rights were violated. Period. It doesn't matter if it's gay activists, Christians, Muslims, or green-eyed one-legged nuns who like to dress up as donkeys and have sex with cows. The group or its agenda (as long as it is peaceful) is irrelevant.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Voxel

I understand that someone "just saying so" is proof enough for a devout christian.

Fortunately, I need something a little more than a glorified blog making an unsubstantiated statement that just happens to back the obvious agenda of its authors.

Until such proof is presented the whole story is nothing more than a couple of sore losers, who don't understand what disturbing the peace means, making wild accusations while offering nothing but hot air.

Feel free. I am responding to the OP linked. Give me some different info and I will rethink my position as well. Until then, I go on the data presented.

I am not your research tool.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
reply to post by EverythingYouDespise

 

Christian rights = the rights to prevent strangers from doing with each other whatever they want.

This couldn't be farther from the truth, though it is a common misconception the evil one has planted in the minds of the lost to keep them astray.

True Christians want others to be aware of the consequences of making bad choices, and to offer another way, The Way, to true fulfillment.

really? then why do they not stop at awareness? why do they insist on laws and rules to prevent people from behaving a certain way? could they not just use that time and effort to go into advertising?
the dairy industry does an AMAZING job of making us aware of milk. look how much of it is our food industry even though it is a detriment to the adult mammal's health. why do they not need to solicit congress to make rules keeping people from turning away from the grace and light of whole milk?
maybe you christians could learn a thing or two there.

reply to post by donwhite

Actually, "THEY" did not pay for it - the Outfest - or anything else bought out of the public treasury. That issue was dealt with long ago and the courts have always held that once the money is collected (taxes) it is no longer "YOUR" money but is now "OUR" money.

I wouldn't go into court with that argument.

The actual ruling stated that the money collected in the form of taxes was owned by the people as a whole (the government) and could not be withheld from the people (government) over allegations of offensive use. That does not mean a citizen can be prevented from attending a public event paid for by that tax money. The money is still the people's money as a whole, and cannot be attributed to the private desires of any one group.

In simpler terms, the Philly 11 could not demand a refund of the part of their taxes used to fund the event. They do have the right to attend, since taxes paid for it, and to state their opinion, under the freedom of speech.

Nice try though.

TheRedneck

this whole thread is insane. even reading a few posts makes the blood boil.

here is a little challenge

1. can anyone out there, anyone at all, provide any scientific evidence that even shows there is a good chance that homosexuality is a trait and not a choice?

2. can anyone out there, anyone at all, provide any scientific evidence that even shows there is as little as .00000000000000000000000000001 percent chance that we are born christian?

reply to post by Icarus Rising


What cracks me up is that this guy says "This is a violation, in fact I was charged with it before". I think you don't need to be a psychoanalyst to see the projection that is going on in that situation.

Puhlease... I don't think you understand that the whistle blowing is a "learned response" taught by the "stimulus" of busy-bodies with a perverted sense of morality. If everytime I went to an NAACP rally the Klan showed up to protest, and the only legal thing I could do would be to blow loud whistles while they recite their hate rhetoric, then you'd bet I would be blowing as hard as I could.

This is the furthest thing from Christianity I've ever seen in my life. I don't want Atheists at my church, and I sure as hell don't want Christian extremists at my Gay Pride Parade!

"Do unto others as you would have done unto you"

Originally posted by TheRedneck
According to the OP, which is what we're discussing, it is clear the Pink Angels were the aggressors.

We don't have an unbiased picture of things... What happened before that?

Anti-Gay Protestors Disruptive

A federal appeals court says Philadelphia police were justified in directing protesters to move when they disrupted a gay street festival in 2004.

A three-judge panel ruled Tuesday that anti-gay activists had a First Amendment right to demonstrate. But the judges say they didn't have a right to disrupt speakers at the 2004 OutFest event.
...
The appeals court says a video shows the group tried to drown out speakers at the event. Thejudges say the right of free speech does not encompass the right to cause disruption.

And get this... They did it again the following year! I googled OutFest Protesters and got a lot of info.

And I would support any group whose rights were violated.

I believe you.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Maybe we don't, but it appears we are working toward one. You left out a snippet I found particularly intriguing:


My original post was based on the OP, as stated earlier, and therefore based on the premise that the Philly 11 were not disruptive. If, as this article states, they were disruptive in their protests, it is fully within the duties of the police to remove them from the event.

This exchange has a lesson in it for some of the posters on here: Just because someone labels themselves a Christian, it does not mean they actually follow Christ or His laws, nor does it mean they are necessarily trying to indoctrinate anyone.

I am a Christian, but I am also an American. The law is the law.

TheRedneck

reply to post by re22666

1. can anyone out there, anyone at all, provide any scientific evidence that even shows there is a good chance that homosexuality is a trait and not a choice?

Well, I hate to burst the bubble but many bible scholars believe St. Paul was himself a homosexual person. Further, there are 2 incidents recored where Jesus deals with others described as "dead" and which may or may not be construed as either pedophile or homosexual acts. If I was an Xtian, I'd get off this anti-homo kick and worry more about important issues.

Philly should become the next "sodom" of biblical fame................

Repent........flee the evil..............

God grants man rights, not the courts...............

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by re22666

 

1. can anyone out there, anyone at all, provide any scientific evidence that even shows there is a good chance that homosexuality is a trait and not a choice?

Well, I hate to burst the bubble but many bible scholars believe St. Paul was himself a homosexual person. Further, there are 2 incidents recored where Jesus deals with others described as "dead" and which may or may not be construed as either pedophile or homosexual acts. If I was an Xtian, I'd get off this anti-homo kick and worry more about important issues.

it is official, noone that replies can read, understand context, or understand what it is they are replying to. what bubble are you bursting?
i was not putting forth an idea, just asking question, that is all. i did not propose anything. i asked something.
and i did say, "SCIENTIFIC" evidence.
what good is a biblical scholar?
would you let and expert on dr. seuss books to design anything that might require, say physics to work???
a biblical scholar is an expert in mythology so that is not scietific proof. but i can tell by your tone that you completelt miss the point.


[edit on 7/19/2008 by re22666]

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
True Christians want others to be aware of the consequences of making bad choices, and to offer another way, The Way, to true fulfillment.

That means that true christians want to invade the privacy of other people, by making them aware.

True christians should mind their own business and stay the hell away from other people and their lives.

The problem comes in in my opinion, that we didn't see this truly video taped from beginning to end. They should have started the tape a block down the road, and video taped as the walked up, through the whole entire process, till they were finally escorted out. From the video tape that I saw, it does look like there rights were violated. I'm an atheist by nature, my sister is bisexual, and my wife is a devout adventist. This being said I think I am one of the most open minded to give an opnion on this.

Do I think the Christians were going there to stir up a reckus? Yes, they were, thats there right. Once a permit is issue for an event, you get people attending the event to have fun, and your get activists to come as well. THAT IS THE REALITY OF HOLDING PUBLIC EVENTS. Put simply the public shows up, and you have to contend with the good and the bad.

Do I think the Christians had a right to be there, absolutely, just and much as the gays did.

This being said, In my opinion, the Christians are just in seeking a civil case against the police department and the city. The police department had a responsibility to ensure that this event was peaceful, Thats it. The Christians were clearly having there rights violated, and the police officer even flaunted for them to bring there lawyer down, on video tape. In other words, instead of obeying the law, which allowed those christians to be there unharassed, the police sided with the homesexuals and exacerbated the situation. The Police should have had the asked the pink angels to cease and disist the whistle blowing, while at the same time, they should asked the christians for there bullhorn. The Christians should have been allocated space opposite of the stage, in a corner to give there speech. AS LONG AS THERE SPEECH DIDN't INTERFERE AKA, start a riot, within the event, they have every right to be there. If a riot had started, then the police are the authority to arrest any of the individuals the engage in the riot on BOTH SIDES.

AS LONG AS THIS WAS PEACEFUL, THE POLICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NUETRAL on this.

I say this because this was a public event, on public property, with security paid for by the government.

HAD THIS BEEN ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, then the gays would have been justified in asking for the christians removal, but as someone else pointed out, this is a case of the police department, the city, and the judical branch choosing one side over another. I say this, according to the video tape, which is ofcourse edited to show the christians in the best light and the police and gays in the worst.

I personally would like to see a complete, uncut, unedited tape from beginning of the christian event to the end of the event. Until I see that, the only evidence I see is this tape, and this shows flagrant violations.

If I was a christian, would I have attended? Yes, I think I would have, but you know what, Jesus didn't beat up the thieves and prostitutes, he sat down with them, and talked to them about loving GOD. The problem I see with christians like this is that they are missing the whole point. IF you are going to go out and save souls, you have to do it like Jesus did, not like Nero.

Just my 2 cents,

Camain

reply to post by Icarus Rising

And just how were the protesters stopping the use of the permit for the purpose for which it was obtained? And how does the city's ensuring this carry greater weight than the Constitutional guarantee of Free Speech? Who's cherry-picking what here, don?

I can't answer the first Q. Mr I/R. (I assume you have a solar heat insurance policy?) Surely you have heard that old saw, you can't "yell fire" in a crowded theater? And you know you cannot use a 1,000 watt amplifier while speaking on a downtown street corner? Every "right" has its limits. Now I must assert you are still cherry-picking. See the following: Mr I/R posted: “. . speech "cannot be silenced simply because another person or group does not agree with it. City officials must be held accountable for their decision to violate the First Amendment rights of Christians (or anybody else) who wanted nothing more than to engage in peaceful assembly on a public street." added parenthetical my words.” THIS is the ADF lawyer’s point of view and is not the words of either the District Court or the Appeals Court.

HOWEVER, Mr I/R failed to include the opening phrase: “Ted Hoppe, a lawyer allied with the Alliance Defense Fund, had argued in the appeal that . . speech "cannot be silenced simply because another person or group does not agree with it . .“ Again, these are Lawyer Hoppe’s words, and not the words of a judge. I don’t know why Mr I/R deleted the opening words from his quote. More cherry picking I guess.

Exert. Members of the "Philadelphia 11" were arrested Oct. 10, 2004. The protesters were jailed overnight, but a judge later dismissed any criminal charges as having no basis in fact. The individuals then filed the damage lawsuit against the city. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Stengel had concluded in dismissing the civil rights claim that a "permit" granted by the city to the homosexuals allowed police to silence the Christian activists' message on public streets. A federal appeals court dismissed a civil rights complaint by 11 Philadelphia Christians.

Case OVER!

Another Philly 11 attorney, a Marcavage said the appellate opinion cited as fact issues a jury should have been allowed to determine, since the 11 were charged with both felonies and misdemeanors in the original criminal case – but not being a disruption, which was cited in the ruling. WRONG.

Charged, yes, but TRIED? No! When a judge dismisses a case there is no trial and if there is no trail there are no jurors. This is a bare faced attempt to MUDDY the waters and AGITATE the base.


Foot Note: Ted Hoppe is a partisan lawyer. I know that because he is “allied with” which in legalese means the ADF pays him. The ADF - Alliance Defense FUND. My caps. ADF was founded in 1994 by 34 notorious electronic media fund raisers including: D. James Kennedy, a former dance instructor (need I say more?) turned preacher but who is now teaching dance in the great Arthur Murray studio in the Sky; James Dobson, who I call the Pope of Colorado, and alive; Marlin Maddoux, now deceased, who was an originator of the primary coordinating group behind the Religious Right Revival, the NARB, National Association of Religious Broadcasters. Others were Bill Bright and Larry Burkett, both are deceased, but all of whom amassed personal fortunes “hustling” miracles on the airwaves in the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s.

[edit on 7/19/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by re22666

. . but i can tell by your tone that you completelt miss the point.

What pray tell, was my point?

Gays and Religious fanatics are coming from a essentially the same place. Flawed perverted logic. Nuff said !

Ah, logic, a construct of man. Isn't that how we arrived at this contradictory ruling?

reply to post by Icarus Rising


Jesus said

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

-Luke 19:27

I've often wondered about this now that were on the topic of contradictions

[edit on 19-7-2008 by Swingarm]

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by re22666

 

. . but i can tell by your tone that you completelt miss the point.

What pray tell, was my point?

how would i know what your point is?

my point was, i asked two questions and hoped for an answer.
i got some snarky crap from bible "experts" and an oppinion about where i must be going "hate to burst your bubble."

my point dummy, my point, you missed my point.

reply to post by tezzajw

True christians should mind their own business and stay the hell away from other people and their lives.

I think everyone that goes by the name tezzajw sould be prevented from posting their opinions.

Actually, no I don't. But it does demonstrate the absurdity of your statement. Should you be isolated from society? No. Should I be isolated from society? No. Should gays be isolated from society? No.

In the long run, you are as much of the problem, based on that statement, as the Westboro Baptist (non)Church.

TheRedneck