posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:55 PM
reply to post by zetaM7
Forgive me if I misunderstood you. I think my misunderstanding is in at least two places. One is the question of "impeding." I took that to mean
that people were being interfered with in their attempts to conduct the business normally conducted at that location.
It appears that the only reason they're unable to conduct normal business is that the DMV isn't open for normal business. Whether the preachers
were there or not, it would have no effect on the conduct of business. Nobody would get done more quickly or efficiently if the preachers weren't
there. So if the preachers weren't affecting the business in any way, there's no violation.
The second area where I misunderstood you is the area of "content" of the speech. This became a Christian thing in my mind for only two reasons.
One, that's what the video was about, and two, the rights involved include freedom of speech and
religion. I had no intention of accusing you
of Christian bashing, I don't believe you were.
But the underlying question remains. Would it have been acceptable if someone was praising the use of bicycles or a particular brand of pizza, or
making some other non-religious announcement? If we say, "No, it's not acceptable, because there is a captive audience," consider other situations
where there is a captive audience. May we speak on busses, for example? Or, to the line waiting for tickets? They are a captive audience there too,
and might be harrangued by a street corner preacher.
What I was trying to do was discover where your objection was rooted.
And after we've done that, don't we have to deal with the Constitutional protection such speech is allowed? Indeed, it's specially mentioned in
the law as a defense.
Certainly no offense intended, and I hope to learn from you.