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.

 

Court says 'gay' rights trump Christian rights

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Court says 'gay' rights trump Christian rights


www.worldnetdaily.com

A federal appeals court dismissed a civil rights complaint by 11 Philadelphia Christians, ruling their First Amendment rights were trumped by the First Amendment rights of homosexuals at the city's taxpayer-funded "Outfest" celebration in 2004.

....it does seem somewhat contradictory to say that, on the one hand the Philly 11 had a constitutionally protected right to be present at the event and to speak, but then to also say that if the crowd does not like their message, the(y can be removed.)
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.wnd.com
www.wnd.com
www.worldnetdaily.com
www.worldnetdaily.com




posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Wow. The wisdom of man can sure lead to some confusing conclusions.

Here's a YouTube video of the event.



www.worldnetdaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Gays and Religious fanatics are coming from a essentially the same place. Flawed perverted logic. Nuff said !


+36 more 
posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I'd assume many "christians" would react similarly if a bunch of atheists decided to crash an event held for christians and start insulting them for their personal belief's. If you aren't gay and don't like gays, don't go to outfest. and if you aren't "christian" and don't believe in their god, then don't go to church. There's no point in doing otherwise other than to cause trouble.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ThePiemaker
 


That's pretty much the gist of it, really. First Amdenment/Section Seven rights are fine and great, but having them isn't carte blanche to do wrong on others.

I'm amazed that that much even had to be decided by a court, really. Hereabouts people are just expected to know not to make jerks of themselves.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Swingarm
 


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



1 Corinthians 1

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.


reply to post by ThePieman
 


You don't have the right to tell people when and where they can meet and practice their faith. The protest at this event was perfectly legal under the Constitution. Your assumption is hypothetical and baseless. I personally am always willing to engage in a discussion of the merits of Christianity and The Word anywhere and anytime except when I am in bed asleep.

reply to post by Ephiram-Lo
 


And just how is a peaceful protest expressing a dissenting view doing "wrong on others?" If anyone is doing wrong, it is the people in pink who are blocking the path of the protesters and making "jerks of themselves."

[edit on 19-7-2008 by Icarus Rising]


+6 more 
posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Gay rights = the rights for consenting adults to bang each other.
Christian rights = the rights to prevent strangers from doing with each other whatever they want.

See the difference?

With that said, I don't think taxpayer money should be spent on this sort of stupidity.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

And just how is a peaceful protest expressing a dissenting view doing "wrong on others?" If anyone is doing wrong, it is the people in pink who are blocking the path of the protesters and makling "jerks of themselves."


I wasn't aware that an open celebration of your uniqueness was being a jerk. It was, however, abundantly clear to me that telling someone that same deviation is a "sin", or "wrong" or whatever other label you slap onto it, is pretty asinine.

A proverb reads, "Do onto others as you would have done unto you."

God or no god, hetero or homo, you must acknowledge the inherent wisdom of not picking a fight.

You speak of "the lost" and "they way" but you can't even recognize that antagonizing potential converts is bad PR.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by Ephiram-Lo]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Whatever you say. You're still judging people for making personal decisions that do not effect you in any way. Why is it the true Christians' (or anyone else, for that matter) place to tell others that the choices they make are "bad"? I thought only God had the right to judge people.

But maybe that's just the Evil One talking.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Ephiram-Lo
 


The open celebration obviously isn't the part I was referring to. The blockade of the protest is in no way part of any celebration. Did you watch the video?



You speak of "the lost" and "they way" but you can't even recognize that antagonizing potential converts is bad PR.


I can and will acknowledge that antagonizing potential converts is not the way to spread Christianity. How does that mean these people don't have a right to be there and protest the event?

reply to post by EverythingYouDespise
 


I am not the judge. Nor am I accusing others of making bad choices. I am simply supporting the effort to make others aware of the consequences associated with such choices. God is the judge of course, and He is revealed through His Word.



James 2

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.



[edit on 19-7-2008 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Quoted, from the OP (emphatics mine): the city's taxpayer-funded "Outfest" celebration in 2004.

So, your video aside, it actually sounds to me more like the "Philly 11" showed up at this Outfest or whatever it was, did the usual "OMG Gehys" thing, and those at Outfest reacted by encircling them in a show of solidarity.

Which brings us back to the point of not picking fights, with the addendum that you especially should not if you can't win them.

By, for example, not reading your entire article when you post it.
I'm not usually the type to take issue with people's mistakes, but in your case, I'm willing to make it abundantly clear that you've been called on it.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Ephiram-Lo
 


I did read the entire article, and I still don't see what your point is. Encircling the group in a show of solidarity is one thing, blocking their right of passage on the street is another. The "Philly 11" showed up to engage in a lawful protest of the event. They had a right to do it, regardless of what you think of their motivations or intent.

You aren't making anything abundantly clear, but feel free to keep trying.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Heaven and Hell resides in the minds of men.
 

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 20/7/2008 by watch_the_rocks]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I think the problem with this is the context. Let's remove the gay part from the equation, and the christian part.

Several people are engaging in the eating of apples. Another group, who prefers oranges, arrives on the scene of an apple convention in protest. In reaction to the antagonizing presence of protesters, the apple-eaters have the Orange-Eaters expelled from the event.

I think the parallel is obvious. Suppose the shoe was on the other foot, in the context of the original issue.

Several christians have staged a very large event expunging the sins of modern society. Despite never being implicated, a large group of gays arrive on the scene. In reaction, several christians surround them and nullify their freedoms of movement, and later speech by making loud noises as they protest.

Are the gays still wrong in this contex, Icarus? Is your issue that the gays won the argument, or that the party-crashers didn't?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 



Quoted with approval from an outside source: "A federal appeals court dismissed a civil rights complaint by 11 Philadelphia Christians, ruling their First Amendment rights were trumped by the First Amendment rights of homosexuals at the city's taxpayer-funded "Outfest" celebration in 2004 . . "


United States Constitution Bill of Rights Amendment I.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

For convenience, this Amendment is divided into clauses. The first clause is logically enough, called the “establishment” clause. This is the very same clause - the violation of which - Judge Roy Moore of Alabama lost his seat on the Alabama High Court. He moved a 3 ton - 6,000 lbs - statuary bearing the short version of the Ten Commandments into the rotunda of the state’s Supreme Court building. It was his stubborn refusal to move out the statuary that cost him his job.

The Appeals Court had no choice but to find NO application of the “establishment” clause or the “free exercise” clause to the facts of the case. Rather, it did find the “assembly” clause applied. And that not a surprise.

One thing glaringly absent from the self-proclaimed righteous is TOLERANCE. A civilizing feature notably lacking in the over-zealous. Tolerant they are not.

This is one more piece of proof that religion including especially the Christian religion is a continuing BLIGHT on humanity. Western man began to throw off the shackles of organized religion in what is now called the Age of the Enlightenment. There is much work yet to be done before we can flush religion down the commode of history.

[edit on 7/19/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Swingarm
 


You have a right to your beliefs, and the responsibility to deal with the consequences of your choices.

Your statement sounds a lot like "do as thou wilt" to me.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Ephiram-Lo
 


The "gays" of course have a right to be at the Christian event, as do the apple eaters at the orange fest. The Christians would be wrong, imo, to impede their presence in any way. The fact that you are now resorting to hypothetical rhetoric does nothing to support your opinion of this matter.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Flush away, don. You will never eliminate the spiritual movement started by Christ.



One thing glaringly absent from the self-proclaimed righteous is TOLERANCE. A civilizing feature notably lacking in the over-zealous. Tolerant they are not.


This I completely agree with. The self-proclaimed righteous are doing Christianity a disservice. The first step to salvation is to admit that you are a sinner, and hopelessly lost under the Law.

But just who is being intolerant of whom here?

[edit on 19-7-2008 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


The outcome of your choices are varying degrees of heaven or hell. You take responsibility for your own freewill.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join