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: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Swingarm
 


That is an interesting philosophy, and imo, for what its worth, a step in the right direction.




posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I don't think Christians should be able to tell people what they can and cant believe and what they can and cant do morally.
And I think if gays want to be gay they should be allowed after all its there body mind and soul they get to choose what they do with it.
However I would support the Christians in some way in telling the gays to shut up and go away and be gay elsewhere, because im sick of having to see there gayness.

[edit on 19/7/08 by Being_From_Earth]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


It's works for me.

 

Replies that contribute nothing in relation to the topic in the opening post are not welcome on ATS.

[edit on 20/7/2008 by watch_the_rocks]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Being_From_Earth
 


I would only support Christians, or any other group for that matter, in their right to peacefully espouse an opposing viewpoint.

You cracked me up in the flesh with that last line though, God forgive me.

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



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Swingarm
 


In a big way, that's what interacting socially comes down to, respecting what works for others. I don't see that the protesters at this event weren't doing that, and asking for it in return.

I myself wouldn't choose such a forum to witness so boldly. To me, there is a time and place for truly effective witness, and it must be chosen with much prayer and careful discernment. I don't necessarily approve of what this group was doing, but I believe they had the right to do it.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


Now here's the part of the loaded headlined quote that the NO TOLERANT buffo Christians leave out:

"The city has an interest in ensuring that a permit-holder can use the permit for the purpose for which it was obtained," this week's opinion from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said. "This interest necessarily includes the right of police officers to prevent counter-protestors from disrupting or interfering with the message of the permit-holder."

The decision upheld a lower court's dismissal of the civil action against the city of Philadelphia and its police filed by the "Philadelphia 11," as they have come to be known."

The Gays were "a permit-holder" and it was THIS RIGHT that trumped anything the deceptive CHRISTIANS might urge on the Court.

Makes sense.

And Jesus Said: "Ye of forked tongue shall get your just dues!"


[edit on 7/19/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I think it breaks down like this, we all have a right to free speech, but when there is a seperation of church and state, the religious persons right is slightly down the totem pole as others rights. When government is concerned that is. That's just my ever so humble opinion.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Imagine if all the gays were ejected from the churches . There would be no more priests left...........



As stated . Why did the "gays" have to jump through hoops (assuming like the rest of us do) To get a permit and the xtians didn't ?

See whats going on here . They payed to have there demonstration. The nut jobs didn't.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
The gay people were holding a permit and attending a publicly-funded gathering FOR THEM.

The Christians came in and made a big fuss. They SHOULD lose. The court made the right decision.

Let's look at this with a little different perspective. What if it had been a publicly-funded Christmas gathering in the street. The people held a permit to have a tree and sing Christmas songs and serve hot cocoa.

All of a sudden, along come the gays, to "peacefully protest" the Christmas gathering. They're wearing their pink hot pants and gesturing flamboyantly, while lisping through gay songs about how the people gathered should come and join their gay-hood. Offering their advice on how happy and gay people could be if they only left the church and became gay...


IF the police came and arrested the gay people, so the Christmas gathering could continue, would you still feel the same way?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


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 know your history with the church and all, so your agenda with it isn't new to me. Anything that goes against the church makes sense to you.

Just another paragraph or so down lies the crux of the matter, Constitutionally, to me.



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


Who cares what the Constitution says, as long as the court's decision goes against the church, right don?



Luke 9

62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
OK, allow me to stick my big nose into this...


I have several problems with this. The first is summed up in, I believe, the third paragraph:

Members of the "Philadelphia 11" were arrested Oct. 10, 2004, after quoting the Bible and expressing their views against homosexual behavior on a public street during "OutFest," a publicly funded celebration of homosexuality.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


'Publicly funded' means that the 'celebration' was paid for by everyone in the city, not just those who agreed with the message it was conveying. That is wrong in the first place, as it opens the event up to a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. In other words, it indicates that the city is bestowing preferential rights on this particular group as opposed to other groups (like the protesters) who had no such celebration of their agenda paid by those who might oppose it.

Were this a private event, an argument could be made that the event was outside the bounds of legal protest. But since the event was on public land and was publicly funded, it is government-sanctioned speech, and is therefore more-so subject to the rights of others to protest it.

The Philly 11 were therefore practicing freedom of speech by presenting a dissenting viewpoint at a government-sanctioned, government-sponsored public event.

The issue of the permit is moot, because the event was not conducted by a private group, but rather was government-sanctioned and government-sponsored. No further governmental approval is needed.

The conduct of the Pink Angels was intimidating and threatening, and attempted to deny the Philly 11 access to the event.

The conduct of the Philly 11 was not, according to the information I have seen thus far, intimidating nor threatening.

Therefore, I say this is a load of legalistic pandering, and the case should be appealed to the SCOTUS. If found in violation of the Philly 11's civil rights, the city of Philadelphia should lose their charter and every individual involved should be subject to criminal arrest for malfeasance of office.

I personally have no problem with someone else's sexual preference, as long as they do not flaunt it in my face (and in return I attempt to not flaunt mine in someone else's face). I have no intention of being in someone else's bedroom period. I have no problem with equality regardless of sexual orientation. I do have a problem when any group of people are given preferential treatment under the law.

I am a Christian, but this is not a gay vs. Christian case. This is a right vs. wrong according to the laws of the land case. It will become a gay vs. Christian situation as long as one group (either one) is held to be subject to the whims of the other.

One more note: it is not possible to force a belief on anyone. That is not even an argument. Your beliefs are your beliefs, as my beliefs are my beliefs.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by d11_m_na_c05
 


Nice spin. It wasn't a demonstration, it was a taxpayer funded gay pride event. Of course they needed a permit.

And, of course, I object to you referring to Christians as "nut jobs."



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I personally have no problem with someone else's sexual preference, as long as they do not flaunt it in my face (and in return I attempt to not flaunt mine in someone else's face).


The gay people weren't flaunting. They were having a gathering. The Christians showed up and stuck their faces in there. THEY flaunted their Christianity in the faces of the gay people. THEY caused a disturbance. They didn't have to attend.

Right?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Yes, of course. This isn't about Christianity, per se. It is a free speech issue. There are bound to be a lot of emotional responses because of the juxtaposition of the groups involved. The fact that I am a fundamentalist evangelical Christian is only relevant in that it is why this article caught my eye. I think it makes for great thread material.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


I was waiting for direct answer to BH's question. I guess we're not going to get one?

[edit on 19-7-2008 by Swingarm]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
My question is whay did these 11 take the time to organize and attend an event that they KNEW they wouldn't be welcome at? Yes, organize. It's not like these people were sitting around and just decided to show up. '"Hey guys, let's crash the Outfest. What do you think"?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Swingarm
 


That is a direct answer to BH's first post. I would have felt the same way. Would I have posted the story and started a thread about it? Probably not. But that is a choice I am free to make, isn't it? I can defend Christianity and Free Speech, can't I? I'm a Christian, and I am an American.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


Sorry, I'm kind of slow
who would you have felt the same way as?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I already said I wouldn't have done what they did. Christians are people too, you know. They do things that aren't necessarily a good idea sometimes, just like anyone else.



John 15

25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.


Was d11_m_na_c05 referrring specifically to the Philly 11, or to all Christians in general? I think that needs to be clarified.


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



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Was d11_m_na_c05 referrring specifically to the Philly 11, or to all Christians in general? I think that needs to be clarified.


These nutjobs. Reads like he's talking about the 11.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join