Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Men Arrested For Carrying Crosses at Gay Day Event
The Center for Reclaiming America ^ | Thursday May 13, 2004 | Sam Kastensmidt

Posted on 05/19/2004 8:48:55 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-191 next last
To: Laissez-faire capitalist
What happened here, in my opinion, is a "caving in" to "special interests" who probably think themselves so "special" that no one should be allowed to protest their little "get-togethers".

Exactly. THIS is why we must stand up for free speech and assembly no matter what our opinions of the protesters or what they are protesting.

If we do otherwise, we will be beat over the head with the same stick we handed the government.

41 posted on 05/19/2004 9:43:32 AM PDT by freeeee ("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
I see. People you don't like don't have the same rights you do. And they'll think you shouldn't have the rights they think they should have. And then no one has rights. Perfect.

I said no such thing, I merely pointed out the possibility that there is an inherent difference in a bunch of parading pansies and the Commander and Chief of the U.S. in a time of war. You seem unable to make distinctions even in the most obvious instances.

42 posted on 05/19/2004 9:44:21 AM PDT by conservonator (Blank by popular demand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JOAT

Niether thick nor obfuscating, but actually familiar with the law and how it's enforced. They should have requested a permit to hold a counter protest, they didn't, they held a counter protest anyway, hopefully they'll treat this as a learning experience. It's no different than seperating neo-nazis and anti-nazi protesters. Problem here is people can't look beyond their own opinion, just because you agree with the guys doesn't mean they handled the situation correctly.


43 posted on 05/19/2004 9:44:37 AM PDT by discostu (Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST

The only troll here is you.


44 posted on 05/19/2004 9:45:27 AM PDT by discostu (Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Men Arrested For Carrying Crosses at Gay Day Event ]

What do you call a Queer who has blown his cover.?
Ans: the boyfriend of the Police Chief..

45 posted on 05/19/2004 9:46:25 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to included some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
We need to compile a list-I'm sure Thomas Jipping already has dossiers on most of them-of the U.S. senators most responsible for the reign of judicial tyranny that currently afflicts us.

These should be the people we target for defeat in the next election. It's much easier to defeat an incumbent senator-though this task is extremely difficult-than to pass constitutional amendments after each horrible court decision.

We need to emulate the example set by Pat Toomy, who would have unseated that pre-Cambrian fossil, Arlen Specter, had his paid staff been as efficient as the numerous conservative volunteers for his campaign.

46 posted on 05/19/2004 9:47:13 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("She's not ugly! She's not ugly! She wouldn't even sour our milk...she's almost pretty...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: conservonator
I merely pointed out the possibility that there is an inherent difference in a bunch of parading pansies and the Commander and Chief of the U.S. in a time of war.

How exactly does "In time of war" explain the well documented fact that el presidente (and many before him) didn't allow protesters near him before 9-11? Please be specific.

And I'm curious, exactly how does who these people date affect free speech and assembly?

47 posted on 05/19/2004 9:47:56 AM PDT by freeeee ("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: discostu
They should have requested a permit to hold a counter protest

If you need a permit to exercise a right, it is no longer a right but a privilege.

48 posted on 05/19/2004 9:49:37 AM PDT by freeeee ("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
"Stick to the catacombs you dirty Christians! The open air is for us Pagans!"

That day is coming fast now.

49 posted on 05/19/2004 9:57:00 AM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: freeeee

By getting a permit you also get police protection from the types of people that hget upset about crosses. There's give and take in the real world Freeeee, it's about time you learned it.


50 posted on 05/19/2004 10:00:10 AM PDT by discostu (Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
You act like Bush is the first and only president to have security. Don't be a dim bulb, Presidents have had, do have and will have extraordinary security measures undertaken for their protection.

Quit trying to demonstrate an equivalence where there is none.

51 posted on 05/19/2004 10:00:48 AM PDT by conservonator (Blank by popular demand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: freeeee

I can almost bet that when this story gets out that there will be serious repercussions over it.

Kinda like that lawsuit when a man sued AT&T broadband and won a $150,000 settlement recently awarded by a federal judge all because he wouldn't sign a form that apparently required him to "value" homosexuality.


52 posted on 05/19/2004 10:03:19 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Isn't that just special.


53 posted on 05/19/2004 10:03:27 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: discostu
By getting a permit you also get police protection from the types of people that hget upset about crosses.

Trading freedom for security. Now there's a great American tradition.

There's give and take in the real world

That is incompatible with unalienable rights, and an invitation to incrementalism.

54 posted on 05/19/2004 10:04:31 AM PDT by freeeee ("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Since when did getting a permit permission equate to anything about the right to FREE speech and PROTEST?


55 posted on 05/19/2004 10:05:46 AM PDT by unixfox (Close the borders, problems solved!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

INTREP - SECULARIZATION OF AMERICA ALERT!


56 posted on 05/19/2004 10:09:56 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: discostu

How, exactly, do you get a permit when "They wanted to go down to protest and we [police] told them they couldn't"?


57 posted on 05/19/2004 10:11:29 AM PDT by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

This is an outrage!


58 posted on 05/19/2004 10:12:59 AM PDT by tutstar ( <{{--->< http://ripe4change.4-all.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso; CWOJackson; *Donut watch

More of our Heros In Blue, doing their job by enforcing the law.


59 posted on 05/19/2004 10:13:15 AM PDT by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservonator
You act like Bush is the first and only president to have security.

I am well aware that Clinton and Bush I had no respect for free speech and assembly as well. In fact I vividly recall the great wailing and screaming when Clinton did the same exact thing to FReepers.

Presidents have had, do have and will have extraordinary security measures undertaken for their protection.

I see you're still clinging to the absurd notion that the removal of protesters had anything to do with safety or security.

So maybe you can answer this question:

There are two people in the crowd watching the presidential motorcade drive by. One is wearing a Bush t-shirt and appluading. The other is wearing a "NO WAR FOR OIL" t-shirt and chanting "no more years". Neither individual has given any indication of malicious intent. They're simply standing there watching and speaking their mind.

As it stands, and not only in the case in this article, the dissenter will be threatened with arrest if he doesn't move to a "free speech zone", the supporter is left be.

Exactly what safety or security threat does the does the dissenter pose that the supporters in the picture below do not? Please be specific.


60 posted on 05/19/2004 10:13:18 AM PDT by freeeee ("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-191 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson