Posted on 10/27/2006 4:35:00 PM PDT by Ellesu
The article --- which is all I have to go on --- didn't say the man was on private property. It said it was "a public place."
The wedge would be to firm up the "right" to protest on private property. An, all your property is belong to us kinda thing.
Open your doors to the public, your property becomes a "public place" if the ACLU had its way. When the rainbow protestors show up at your church to speak out against the church teaching against homosexuality, how do you get them to stop their disruption, as they are now making their protest in "a public place"?
THEY ARE TRYING TO GIVE THE ACLU LOVING DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS SOME AMMUNITION TO USE TO FIGHT AGAINST THE CHANGES TO 42 USC 1988. THE LAW THAT ALLOWS THEM TO BE AWARDED ATTORNEY'S FEES!
Yup.
Would this be one of the Reverend Phelps' flock?
Hmmm... This has now gone to "Is the sky blue?" types of questions.
Let me see if I can not waste so much time and clear my thinking up for you.
Hiring the ACLU to bring civil lawsuits is a BAD thing. This is because the ACLU is a pro communist organization that will do whatever it can to destroy the U.S. Where it excels is finding liberal judges to side with them, rather than the law, in lawsuits.
Yes, there are many other law organizations who bring civil suits and are awarded victories - which normally means fees as well. Since these organizations are not trying to destroy the country, rather are defending the Constitution, is makes sense to reward them by retaining them and NOT retaining the ACLU.
If this doesn't clear it up for you you'll have to ask someone else. Or, simply support the ACLU, communism, and the destruction of the U.S. Constitution and not expect any more responses from me.
I thought at first that this was just that once-a-year PR blitz by the athiest Democrat scumbags at the ACLU but on second thought I figure they're purpose in this case is to poke Wal-Mart in the eye.
There was an injunction against congregating on the steps of the church, so when the police arrived, they would clear off everybody, including church people coming out of Mass, who were then obliged to go through the jeering homosexual throng, which was humiliating as well as dangerous. The NYC police called this "even-handed enforcement."
I think it's a matter of sheer political power. If the Mayor and the Chief of Police were determined to shield the churchgoers from noisy confrontation, they could have curbed ACT-UP; but since they were sympathetic to, or at least intimidated by, ACT-UP and its supporters, the cops allowed innocent church-goers to be obscenely harrassed on a regular basis.
If I am not mistaken, the private property of a church, residence, or business includes the sidewalk to the curb. Technically. Does anybody know?
Your question may be the issue involved in the case in the article. They are not defending his Christian beliefs, his right to worship as he sees fit. Cases like this one are never about the defendant. They are about creating precedence, which can then be used in other cases. If he was right by the front door & wins, do you think an injunction for the church steps would be legally allowed?
If you think going through jeering on your way into or out of church is bad, understand the legal goals of your opponents. They want their opinion heard in your church, getting spouted from the pulpit. Rainbow sashes have announced as much.
A sidewalk is not owned by the property owner, even if it was originally part of the owner's property. In some cases they create the sidewalk and call it an "easement" and in other cases, they simply condemn it, pay you a "pittance" for it, and then it is not yours.
In either case, whether considered an "easement" or actually state property, it is still considered a public place.
A perfect example of an easement is an electric, gas, or water meter. Also, if you have a main water line, main gas line, or some other utility coming through your property and the city needs to do work on it, you're just flat out of luck, even if it is "your" property.
This ain't about Christianity. It's about smashing Walmart.
The ACLU will take any case when there's a chance of hurting the economy or the social fabric.
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.