Posted on 03/20/2014 11:48:50 AM PDT by Oliviaforever
It will be denied, and then he will sue. HE has a pair!
There is no freedom of speech. The double standard continues unabated.
Donohue is equivalently trying to put out a fire by throwing water at the flame instead of on the source of the fire.
Come on Freepers, you realize Oliviaforever/trumandogz, etc is a troll and is playing with you all, right?
You know this, you're just playing with people whom you think are dumb. This is just trolling.
Is the march directors name really STUDinski?
If so he should change it to BUTTinski.
Is there a /sarc tag missing from your post?
The Gay Pride parade organizers have a permit for specific streets and roadways on a specific date and at a specific time, just as the St Patrick’s Day parade organizers did. Those organizers/permit holders are free to choose who can and who can’t march on those roadways on that date and in that time. Being on the street as a spectator is another story.
Unless you’re saying the gay groups had a Constitutional Right to march in the St. Patrick’s Day parade?
He’s fighting back.
To use a baseball analogy; do you try to hit a homerun every single time? Or do you bunt sometimes, try for a single, maybe steal a base here and there.
Incrementalism works. Conservatives need to stop criticizing and get on board before our country is completely destroyed.
I know that gays as individuals were not excluded, but such groups were not allowed. The primary difference is that the St. Patrick’s Day Parade has a religious aspect while a gay pride parade is a purely political event.
The religious exercise should be protected from instigators, while a political event on a public street should not exclude citizens from voicing an opinion.
The National Catholic Reporter is as Catholic as Obama is.
No, my point is that the St. Patrick’s Day Parade has a religious basis and should be able to exclude those who oppose the faith.
Gay pride is political and and cannot exclude based on political opinion.
I agree with you about incrementalism. The Constitution-ignoring Progressive Movement has used it very effectively.
But is Donohue's incrementalism calculated based on his knowledge of the Scriptures? Or is he approaching this issue emotionally as a consequence of his ignorance of key passages in the Scriptures, ultimately wasting everybody's time?
It would appear the SCOTUS disagrees with you unanimously.
“Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston” Wikipedia
“Justice Souter delivered the unanimous opinion of the court on June 19, 1995.[32] He reasoned that, even though the Council did not have a narrow, set message that it was intending to convey, the parade nevertheless constituted a message that the Council had a right to protect.[33] Noting that the Council had been fairly unrestrictive in its guidelines for determining which groups to allow to participate in the parade, he said this did not necessarily mean that the Council waived its right to present its message in a way it saw fit. He wrote: “One important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide what not to say”.[34]”
The gay community knows those biblical passages and have been conditioned that they equal hate. The reality doesn’t matter to them.
A different tact needs to employed if we are to stem the tide.
Are you seriously suggesting Bill Donohue is ignorant of those passages? Its not a waste of time if it opens the door even a little bit for those lost souls to learn the truth.
This would be a very bad PR move for the Catholics. They’ll lose more than they’ll gain. For every one gay pride parade that the Catholics want to be in, there will be a hundred other parades that the queers will want to be in. And now, they’ll have the mantra of “we let the Catholics in our parade, they should let us in theirs”. The church should NOT accept their ‘kind offer’. When good and evil ‘compromise’, evil gains and good loses.
Thank you for your patience with this discussion.
Note this other thread where Catholics are fighting back concerning a different issue.
FR: Catholics mount legal challenge to Obamacare
The problem with their approach to fighting constitutionally indefensible Obamacare Democratcare, possibly reflecting Catholic Donohue's Don Quixote approach to fighting homosexuality in this thread, is the following.
Reflecting their ignorance of the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, Catholics are ineffectively fighting Democratcare by arguing federal government definitions of religious employer and also exemptions for the elite.
In other words, as a consequence of their parents not making sure that their children were taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, you won't see them stopping Democratcare dead in its tracks by arguing the following single-line Supreme Court clarifications about the constitutionality of federal public healthcare programs.
Regardless what activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutionality of Democratcare, these official clarifications show that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for public healthcare purposes.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. (emphases added)” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Again, is Bill Donohue taking the Don Quixote approach to fighting homosexuality as a consequence of his possible ignorance of key scriptural passages, just like other Catholics are taking that approach, imo, to fighting Democratcare as a consequence of their likely ignorance of the federal government's constitutionally limited powers?
I wouldn't be surprised if most members of the gay community were indoctrinated about key, gay-related passages by pro-gay activist bullies without having studied the passages for themselves.
Are you seriously suggesting Bill Donohue is ignorant of those passages?
These days I won't ASS-U-ME that that most Christians have actually studied relevant passages.
Oh vey, with the contortions! That's quite the specious reasoning. The St. Patrick's Day Parade, despite its reference to a Catholic saint, is not a "religious exercise," but a secular celebration of Irish heritage. A religious exercise would be a church Mass celebrated in St. Patrick's honor.
You know, of course, that in 1995 the US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that "Boston's St. Patrick's Day parade was a privately run operation that could write its own rules for participation." So a private organization is well within its rights to make rules, and their rules stated no political banners. This rule applies to all groups, not just the St. Patrick's Parade.
An yet, at the parades this week, there were people bearing rainbow flags and signs protesting--what is in your opinion--a "religious exercise," and these protestors were not excluded from voicing their opinion outside the parade. They could participate in the event, just not under their banners.
Mr. Donohue may have meant well, but was short-sighted. A good attorney knows never to ask a question to which he does not know the answer. I suspect Mr. Donohue applied to march in the Gay Pride Parade, expecting to be told to shove off, and then use that refusal as political leverage. But he was outsmarted when the Gay Pride Parade committee said sure why not, march in our parade under your banner.
Now Donahue has fallen into a trap of his own making. If he participates in the Gay Pride Parade, it will be a public affirmation of the "tolerance" of the homosexuals and "intolerance" of the people who refuse to let homosexuals march under their banner in their private, non-political parade. But I suspect you know that already...
Make the most of it, I say. DO it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.