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: 12
4
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Churches are not funded by the government, they are funded by member contributions. They are, if I am not mistaken, a 503c corporation, non-profit and tax exempt. President Bush has instituted faith based initiatives that I think provide public funding for church sponsored community projects. I'm not that familiar with the program.

I agree that it would be much better for protests of events such as these to be staged outside the event. I still believe the Philly 11 had the Constitutional right to do what they did, and the city and police infringed on that right with their actions.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Icarus Rising]




posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I still believe the Philly 11 were intentionally putting themselves into a situation which could provoke a violent response. And there's no such thing as a right to start a fight.

The parade got their permit, and weren't breaking any rules, hence, they continue their parade.
The Philly 11 just wanted to crash that parade. They're not fooling anyone if they think the outcome of that would have been peaceful.

The police had to separate the two. One of the groups would have to go somewhere else.
If the philly 11 had obtained a permit to assemble somewhere else in the city, you would find their rights had not been trampled.

I mean, imagine if the KKK wanted to go to a Black Panthers parade... the exact same thing would have happened. Whoever has the permit, gets to assemble, the other group has to find somewhere else.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
reply to post by Annee
 


Churches are not funded by the government, they are funded by member contributions. They are, if I am not mistaken, a 503c corporation, non-profit and tax exempt.

I agree that it would be much better for protests of events such as these to be staged outside the event. I still believe the Philly 11 had the Constitutional right to do what they did, and the city and police infringed on that right with their actions.


Point is - I'm paying for their sewers - - and so is all the gays in their district.

I realize the individuals pay taxes - - but their Gathering Place where they have free reign to their belief's and judgment of those they don't approve of - - does not.

Seems only fair we should allow gays a tax free protected park where they can gather/congregate - - and share their beliefs.

Or allow atheists free reign of churches and their owned properties. But aren't they privately owned - - so protected from trespassers?



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


Agreed.

However, the city and police were wrong to arrest and imprison the Philly 11 and charge them with felonies. That is the basis for the lawsuit. Even though the charges were dismissed, which is tantamount to admission the arrests and imprisonment were bogus, the civil rights of the Philly 11 guaranteed by the Constitution were violated, and I believe the city and police are liable. Two wrongs don't make a right.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


You do not pay their water and waste bills. The chruch pays its own utility bills. The members of the church paid taxes to lay whatever public utilities service the church, as well. The property was purchased with church funds accumulated through member donations. What is to stop any group from following the rules and forming a non-profit organization to do the same thing a church does? Nothing.

Your argument is misguided and false.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
reply to post by Annee
 


You do not pay their water and waste bills. The chruch pays its own utility bills. The members of the church paid taxes to lay whatever public utilities service the church, as well. The property was purchased with church funds accumulated through member donations. What is to stop any group from following the rules and forming a non-profit organization to do the same thing a church does? Nothing.

Your argument is misguided and false.


It was just a pseudo example. Churches benefit from taxes - but don't pay any.

You can twist it anyway you want - but with the vast amount of churches in any given city and the value of their tax free property (and other) - - - individual citizens are paying for what they don't.

That is simple math.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


We are way off topic here, so I suggest you start another thread if you wish to pursue this topic. I have already been warned at least twice to stay on topic.

I will say I think your math is fuzzy, and it isn't just churches that benefit from tax exempt satus, though you seem determined to single them out for reasons of your own.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
QUESTION: are there any other news sources reporting/discussing the Philadelphia 11?

You are using World Net Daily as your source. So I researched your source to see if they had a bias - which it seems they do.

WorldNetDaily is a for-profit website that provides primarily evangelical-conservative-oriented news and editorials, publishes letters to the editor, maintains forums and conducts a daily poll. Besides providing articles authored by its own staff, the site links to news from other publications. The website's Commentary page features editorials from the site's founder, Joseph Farah and other social conservative authors such as Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, and Chuck Norris.

I remove myself from this discussion at least until I find a second news source of unbiased opinion.

Hope this isn't considered Off Topic.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I believe God is right about everything, and I turn to His Word for His perspective in all things.


Again, thank you for proving my point about you being unable to discuss a topic without dragging religion into it. How am I promoting secularism btw? Just because I think this argument has nothing to do with religion and is just about fundamentalists trying to hijack another event does not equal secularism


All this religious group wanted to do is cause trouble and accuse the world of persecuting christians (again). Under constitutional law, the United States does not endorse any religion so its right the court rules against a religious group.

Why can't you understand that? If a gay rights group protested outside a church, I doubt you would be defending their right to protest - if a court ruled against them


So what if two men or two women want to marry and adopt a child. It is a decision that has nothing to do with the state or government.


[edit on 21-7-2008 by infinite]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 




Your posts highlights a perfect example of why religion should be taken directly out of the legislative branch, courts and the state.

God's place is the Church and the Church only.


I'd say this is about as complete an endorsement of secularism as anyone could make.

Btw, I agree with the separation of church and state, though I also believe it has been wrongly used to justify religious persecution.



Under constitutional law, the United States does not endorse any religion so its right the court rules against a religious group.


The ridiculous assertion in the second part of your statement here speaks volumes to how convoluted and inaccurate your logic concerning this issue is.



If a gay rights group protested outside a church, I doubt you would be defending their right to protest - if a court ruled against them


You couldn't be more wrong about this. I would absolutely defend their rights to protest on public property in the vicinity of a church. That's the big difference here, you don't seem willing to defend the rights of people you don't agree with. That is bias in its most blatant form. Separation of church and state is not intended to support bias against religion or the religious.



So what if two men or two women want to marry and adopt a child. It is a decision that has nothing to do with the state or government.


Though this statement has nothing to do with the topic of the thread and could be construed as an attempt to derail the thread and possibly get it closed by forum moderators, as a parent I feel compelled to respond.

It is a decision that has everything to do with the rights of the child to grow up in an environment that promotes values and behaviors that are in the best interest of the child and its future. I suggest you start another thread if you want to discuss exactly what those values and behaviors that are in the best interest of the child entail.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Here's another take on what happened from the perspective of the event organizers.



On October 10, 2004, 11 individuals identifying themselves as "Repent America" were arrested by the Philadelphia police department and charged with various offenses of the Pennsylvania criminal code for disrupting and harassing the individuals and vendors participating in Outfest 2004, Philadelphia's celebration of National Coming Out Day, the largest such celebration in the nation. Unlike previous years, the protesters were confronted with counter-demonstrators holding huge pink styroform "angels" and blowing whistles. Pride volunteers had formed a human chain to prevent their entrance. After some delay, and following a direct from the police to permit them to enter, the human chain was dismantled. The protesters interrupted the activities at the main stage and the police asked the group to move north on 13th Street

At this point the "pink angels" were formed around the demonstrators and whistles were sounded every time they attempted to speak on their bullhorns, both to protect the protesters from the angry crowd reaction and to prevent their angry and disruptive rhetoric from inciting the crowd. Contrary to their portrayal to the press that they were merely quoting the Gospel and singing religious songs, on three [3] separate occasions, a transgender female was berated on the bullhorn and told "your mirror lied to you this morning . . . you have a 5 o'clock shadow."

The protesters were clearly perplexed by the exercise of competing First Amendment rights and started to block two vendors on the east side of 13th Street. After protests were made to the police that the vendors had paid for their spaces and were prevented from conducting any activity by the presence of the demonstrators, the police asked the protesters to move north on 13th Street. The protestors stated that they wanted to move, but would only move south on 13th in the direction of the main stage. The police then gave the protesters a direct order to move, and, unlike the Pride volunteers who had obeyed the police directive given them, the protesters refused to move. They were arrested but criminal charges were later dismissed by a Philadelphia Common Pleas judge.

source


Like I said, I don't personally approve of what the Philly 11 did. I don't think it helps advance the teachings of Christ to be confrontational like this in this venue. The fact, if it is a fact, that the Philly 11 blocked vendors that had paid rent for space to sell poducts at the event didn't help their cause either. I am kind of morbidly curious what said vendors were selling, though.

At any rate, I still believe the protesters had a right to be there, but not to be disruptive to the point they drowned out the speakers and prevented vendors from doing business. It seems they tried to move at first but became encircled and cut off "for their own protection." I still don't see why they weren't just detained and escorted out of the event. Felony charges and imprisonment amounts to a violation of their civil rights, imo.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Btw, I agree with the separation of church and state, though I also believe it has been wrongly used to justify religious persecution.


Pure BS. I have never heard of Christians being persecuted in the United States, so please do not play the victim card here. Just because the rest of society do not want to live in a theocracy, like Iran, does not mean the population is persecuting a religious sect.



The ridiculous assertion in the second part of your statement here speaks volumes to how convoluted and inaccurate your logic concerning this issue is.


*yawns*

No, because you believe Church and State should be separate but you imply the State should put religious rights above all else. Which is social and religious apartheid.

That's evangelical "Christians" for you




That's the big difference here, you don't seem willing to defend the rights of people you don't agree with. That is bias in its most blatant form.


Did I say that? No. You seem to defend the actions and think this fundamentalist group had a right to tell people how to live their lives. Protesting and forcing individuals to "repent" are two separate entities, but you think we still have a right to force mass conversions.

Nobody has the right to harass individuals and then hide behind the word "repent". It's pathetic. But, according to you, breaking the law on religious grounds is okay


Who cares if there is a gay rights parade. Nobody is forcing you to watch the parade ffs

Icarus Rising, all I've seen from you in this thread is you using a religious book to defend harassment and extremism. You've twisted biblical words to defend a fundamentalist sect. Tragically, this news story has nothing to do with religious rights and it is sad people will use religion to defend violations of the law.

I've had my fun in this thread. I've learnt its best sticking to my church - it doesn't promote and defend extremism like some



[edit on 21-7-2008 by infinite]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


Suit yourself. I'm advocating fairness under the law to all groups regardless of any or no religious affiliation. You are advocating discrimination against a group based solely on religious affiliation. That's bias, and its not only wrong, its illegal under the Constitution.

To then cite the fact that I quote the Bible to support my beliefs, and use that as an excuse to leave the thread casting aspersions on fundamental Christians further shows the depth of your bias and denial.

You are out of your league here, and you've shown it. Good day, and God bless.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Suit yourself. I'm advocating fairness under the law to all groups regardless of any or no religious affiliation. You are advocating discrimination against a group based solely on religious affiliation. That's bias, and its not only wrong, its illegal under the Constitution.


No, what we are talking about is a group of people that have been castigated for centuries, usually the target of the religious. That's not bias, that's evening the playing field. Seems like these 11 would rather wallow in an age that has past though.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
It seems they tried to move at first but became encircled and cut off "for their own protection." I still don't see why they weren't just detained and escorted out of the event. Felony charges and imprisonment amounts to a violation of their civil rights, imo.


I cannot speak for what exactly went on at this event, but I'm going to give you a little info on what "for your own protection" means for these whackjobs that were out there.

There's a reverend around these parts named Grant Storm. Total evangelical pseudo-Christian nutter that wants to go out to any and all events where there are masses of gay people and create as much trouble as he can. Reminds me a lot of these 11 "protesters."

One year I was doing a security detail for a bar during Mardi Gras that he was outside of screaming away on his megaphone about things I won't even go about typing on this site. He was beginning to aggravate people and I can't blame them. Being called the multitudes of names he was using towards gays was enough to get his face kicked in. But there he was, and there we were, and we did circle around him to prevent anything from happening. Not only that, but when someone would come up to yell back at Storm, we would ask them to just let it be, let him say his piece and be gone.

So yeah, for his own protection, because I did not want the man to be harmed and further his own stupefying dogma. People like that have to be held close so that they aren't injured, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that people want to chase after them. If I walked up to your mother or father and started spitting on them and calling them everything under the sun I could think of, what would you want to do?

Must be nice to be a Christian and hide under the wings of Religious Freedom to hate on others. Oh that's right, it's not hate, it's "God's Love."


My God wouldn't call me those names.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I am not law educated - but know there is interpretation of law. There is also interpretation of the Constitution and state laws and constitution. It is rarely black and white.

I find that the gays did a great job of organizing and found a playful silly way of trying to prevent trouble.

I find that the Christians were the aggressor and willfully - intentionally broke a law of disruption of an event. Could this even fall under a hate crime? Why shouldn't they be arrested if they broke a law?

Christians may have at one time been persecuted - - but they are not now - - and to use that perspective is BS.

This country/government has suffered way too long in a Christian stranglehold. Way too many times courts have leaned in the name of God. Today courts are far better at recognizing everyone's rights.

Fear of losing control they never should have had does not equate to Christian abuse.

Still getting back to legalities - it would be interesting what the ACLU said about this case.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Churches are not funded by the government, they are funded by member contributions. They are, if I am not mistaken, a 503c corporation, non-profit and tax exempt.


Let me ask a quesion:

Since churches are tax exempt, and the Philly 11 were representing the church, how can they claim they paid taxes for the event?



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
What is to stop any group from following the rules and forming a non-profit organization to do the same thing a church does? Nothing.


What? Have you ever tried to obtain tax-free status? It's about as easy as pulling GW's teeth behind the SS's back.


Your argument is misguided and false.


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?



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePiemaker
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.


I applaud this post, shows the kind of simple reasoning so many lack.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by niteboy82
 


Must be nice to be a Christian and hide under the wings of Religious Freedom to hate on others. Oh that's right, it's not hate, it's "God's Love."

Don’t you dare spoil the fun; people are starting to realize their religion will be viewed as divisive and oppressive as we see religion in the past. Working against science, women’s rights, hell working against women in general as if being female was a sin itself, and now they’re bullying the homosexuals.

Don’t you or anyone else attempt to set them straight, I’m afraid they’ll listen and be loving and Christ-like as they have never been. Allow them to continue showing their true colors, along with their religions true colors.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join