This is a serious subject. Don't tell jokes.
The story about Kiildi felt like a WND story despite not being from there. I tried googling her name and all that came up was that story and what appears to be you posting on another forum.
As a reporter, I've often interviewed people whose names never appeared in any other publication, because it was a local story. That doesn't mean the story wasn't true or didn't indicate anything about the situation being discussed. The fact that an injustice hasn't been reported in 15 different journals doesn't mean it didn't take place, and it doesn't mean that more like it aren't coming. Also, M.D. Harmon has excellent credentials and has been writing for the Press Herald for at least 10 years.
Only 4 of the Philadelphia 11 ever went to court and the charges against them were thrown out.
Let's say there's a group of 11 people holding McCain signs outside an Obama rally. The police arrest all of them, 4 end up in court and a federal judge throws the charges out. Is that OK with you? Can you show me in the Constitution where it says the overriding principle of our government is "All's well that ends well?"
If some city decides that Blacks may not protest against Klan rallies and hauls a few of them off to jail, will you be OK with that as long as none of them go to prison? How about if someone decides gays aren't allowed to hold pro-gay marriage rallies? Arrests OK as long as no one gets convicted?
If you were arrested and released (eventually) because one of your closely held beliefs was declared to be "hate" and a violation of civil rights, you'd think that was acceptable? Really?
It sounds like Crystal Dixon is in the process of suing the university.
Crystal Dixon said that gays hadn't had it as bad as people who were enslaved for hundreds of years, and she was FIRED. If they had fired her because she was Black or Jewish, would you say, "Hey, it's OK, she's taking it to court and the courts don't seem to be fond or racial discrimination" or would you call it what it is?
I had some difficulty finding information about Leo Childs, but it appears he was fired for more reasons than his opposition to gay marriage.
So, why did they decide to fire him a year later, right after he was berated in a public meeting for daring to have the "wrong" opinion on gay marriage? If you had a disagreement with a boss, and then he fired you for it a year later right after he (for instance) found out you were a Republican, a Jew or gay, would you accept that you were being fired for the previous year's activity, or would you call a lawyer?
If the Church generally allows people to freely assemble there they cannot arbitrarily bar people from assembling there.
1. How exactly is it "arbitrary" for a church to decline a ceremony that violates their closely held teachings? Should a synagogue be forced to prepare ham in their kitchen because their decision to not serve ham at previous functions was arrived at "arbitrarily?"
2. Should the church have to host Satanic weddings?
3. While I was a drinker, I was married at a Baptist church and was not allowed to serve alcohol at my reception. Should I have been able to sue over this arbitrary decision?
4. The lesbians in question could assemble their wedding at thousands of other locations, but the property and religious rights of this church would only be violated by holding the wedding at one location. Why is the "right" of first choice for wedding location more important than property rights and religious conscience? Should lesbians be able to hold a wedding in my living room if that's their first choice?
5. Why did you only read (or at least coment on) the part of the NPR article that dealt with the Ocean Grove case? What about the violations of other Americans' rights detailed in the sidebar at the bottom of the page?
My point about the people going through court is not that it is OK. The point is that an injustice sometimes has to happen in order for the courts to rule on it. It is unfortunate, but true. I wish everyone would be more open to letting others speak their mind, but that isn’t the case. The fact is that despite all of the attempts in this country to limit speech, free speech is being reinforced.
You represented in the Philly case that this huge injustice occurred and all 11 of them went to jail for something that none of them did. And the case didn’t even go to trial.
Mr. Childs may have done several things that by themselves didn’t add up to enough to fire him, but when it came around to re-hire him there was a pretty much unanimous decision to not do so. Maybe the gay issue was the over-riding issue, but there were at least some other issues at work.
And yes, if you are allowing people to freely assemble you can’t all of a sudden stop. Not that a church shouldn’t be able to do so. But some of that kind of depends on how the pavilion has been used in the past. I agree with you that they should go to a place that isn’t owned by a church. However, things are not as black and white on these issues as you are portraying them.
Are you as much of a crusader for people to not be arrested for something like flag burning?