Posted on 04/28/2011 9:35:21 AM PDT by WalterSkinner
You really don’t comprehend the difference and distinction between “have to” and “can” (or “could”)? Honestly?
You are the one who keeps saying “have to”. I am the one who keeps saying “can” and “could”. You are the one trying to say I’ve said “have to” when you are the one saying “have to”.
You are the twister of words.
OK, let me see if I can be perfectly clear in this statement..............................This pastor is no different than an in your face homosexual trying to force feed his beliefs on people waiting to conduct business with the state and who can not afford to leave and come back and miss another days pay.No, it is not OK to preach religion,sexual preferance or personal views or beliefs of any kind to anyone in cicumstances such as this. It is not my duty to schedule my time to avoid these idiots.
You can make any statement that the JRs don’t take down. If that’s your statement, that’s your statement.
“You reserve a right for yourself that you deny to others. “
What are you, an anarchist? Where rights end and begin are clearly defined. Maybe when you grow up your parents might have taught you the difference between right and wrong. Try thinking for a change instead of acting on your emotions.
“You have no right to define where anyone else’s rights end any more than they have a right to define where your rights end.
“
Sorry you are too stupid to know any better. I, of all people, know where someone elses rights end as I know where mine begin. Your right to throw a punch ends and the tip of my nose. By your logic, I have no right to say that.
I don’t know what makes you such a childish idiot, but it really works.
They were arrested for perfectly acceptable and expected reasons.
"They were arrested for perfectly acceptable and expected reasons."
Really? What part of the First Amendment do you not understand (read (2) above until you get it)?
Would it be a reasoned argument, in your mind, if I asked if you were (insert emotionally-charged label here)? Of course not. It is purely designed to evoke an emotional response, the very thing you try to assign to me just below.
Where rights end and begin are clearly defined."
As I said in the initial post, "Of course, that statement works against you just as easily as it works against him. It's all about who gets to decide where someone else's rights 'end'." As we shall see in a moment, you reserve the right to decide where this man's rights end for yourself but deny him the same right.
"Maybe when you grow up your parents might have taught you the difference between right and wrong."
Ah, ridicule. Is that one of your better arguments?
"Try thinking for a change instead of acting on your emotions."
Think Toad, think. You are making arguments that work equally well against your position as for it. That is no argument at all and reduces you to ridicule and name-calling in the place of reasoned argument.
"Sorry you are too stupid to know any better."
Ah, more name-calling.
"I, of all people, know where someone elses rights end as I know where mine begin."
Yes, here we see that you reserve for yourself the right to determine where someone else's rights end and yours begin but you deny that same right to anyone who disagrees w/ you. This is what I said in my first post to you. It still applies.
"Your right to throw a punch ends and the tip of my nose."
Who's throwing punches? Anyone? Anyone at all? Nope. Nobody. We're talking speech and words here, not punches.
"By your logic, I have no right to say that."
It is your logic that says that people have no right to say certain things, not mine. We can again, use your own 'argument' against you. Using your own logic, we can say that you have no right to say or write anything that I disagree with. So your logic fails again.
"I don’t know what makes you such a childish idiot, but it really works."
Ah, ridicule and name-calling. Nothing that couldn't be directed back at you. But apparently, that is the motive. To reduce the discussion to ridicule and name-calling. You fail again.
All those idiots voted for that, they deserve to hear a few choice words...
I would have a different message for them and lots of words starting with "F."
“I’ve been to hell and I spell it
I spell it D-M-V
Anyone who’s been there
Knows precisely what I mean
Call it pointless”
(Primus - DMV)
Would these people in line be offended by the guy talking on his cell phone? playing his boom box? By the couple groping each other? If you don’t like what you hear, sing your own song loudly -— or put headpones from your own MP3 player in your ears.
Would these people in line be offended by the guy talking on his cell phone? playing his boom box? By the couple groping each other? If you don’t like what you hear, sing your own song loudly -— or put headpones from your own MP3 player in your ears.
Would these people in line be offended by the guy talking on his cell phone? playing his boom box? By the couple groping each other? If you don’t like what you hear, sing your own song loudly -— or put headpones from your own MP3 player in your ears.
ok people in line at the DMV are off limites because they can not leave.
This person is a idiot.
This was settled in a series of Hari Krisna cases where they were doing the same thing to people waiting in line at the airports.
Freedom of Religion/Speech also includes the ability to elect not to listen.
He should have been stopped.
The USSC already answered this “time place and manner” question. The Hari Krishna’s lost.
He is 100% wrong on this one.
They probably did and he probably responded with a “freedom of religion” argument founded upon ignorance.
This is no different than if he was standing there with a boom box blasting racist hate filled rap music in the guise of free speech.
the law does not work that way.
Those pastors can not hold other peoples lives hostage.
The pastors were just plain wrong and in violation of the law and the constutition. (see the USSC harri krishna cases)
U.S. Supreme Court
INTERNATIONAL SOC. FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS v. LEE, 505 U.S. 672 (1992)
505 U.S. 672
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA
CONSCIOUSNESS, INC., ET AL. v. LEE,
SUPERINTENDENT OF PORT AUTHORITY POLICE CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 91-155
Argued March 25, 1992
Decided June 26, 1992
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns and operates three major airports in the New York City area and controls certain terminal areas at the airports (hereinafter terminals), adopted a regulation forbidding, inter alia, the repetitive solicitation of money within the terminals. However, solicitation is permitted on the sidewalks outside the terminal buildings. Petitioner International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. (ISKCON), a not-for-profit religious corporation whose members, among other things, solicit funds in public places to support their movement, brought suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the regulation deprived its members of their First Amendment rights. The District Court granted ISKCON summary judgment, concluding that the terminals were public fora, and that the regulation banning solicitation failed because it was not narrowly tailored to support a compelling state interest. The Court of Appeals reversed as here relevant. It determined that the terminals are not public fora, and found that the ban on solicitation was reasonable.
Held:
1. An airport terminal operated by a public authority is a non-public forum, and thus a ban on solicitation need only satisfy a reasonableness standard. Pp. 677-683.
(a) The extent to which the Port Authority can restrict expressive activity on its property depends on the nature of the forum. Regulation of traditional public fora or designated public fora survives only if it is narrowly drawn to achieve a compelling state interest, but limitations on expressive activity conducted on any other government-owned property need only be reasonable to survive. Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 45 , 46. Pp. 677-679.
(b) Neither by tradition nor purpose can the terminals be described as public fora. Airports have not historically been made available for speech activity. Given the lateness with which the modern air terminal has made its appearance, it hardly qualifies as a property that has “immemorially . . . time out of mind” been held in the public trust and used [505 U.S. 672, 673] for the purposes of expressive activity. See Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496, 515 . Nor have airport operators opened terminals to such activities, see Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 802 , as evidenced by the operators’ frequent and continuing litigation in this area. Pp. 679-681.
(c) That speech activities may have historically occurred at “transportation nodes” such as rail and bus stations, wharves, and Ellis Island is not relevant. Many of these sites traditionally have had private ownership. In addition, equating airports with other transportation centers would not take into account differences among the various facilities that may affect the extent to which such facilities can accommodate expressive activity. It is unsurprising to find differences among the facilities. The Port Authority, other airport builders and managers, and the Federal Government all share the view that terminals are dedicated to the facilitation of efficient air travel, not the solicitation of contributions. Pp. 681-683.
2. The Port Authority’s ban on solicitation is reasonable. Solicitation may have a disruptive effect on business by slowing the path of both those who must decide whether to contribute and those who must alter their paths to avoid the solicitation. In addition, a solicitor may cause duress by targeting the most vulnerable persons or commit fraud by concealing his affiliation or shortchanging purchasers. The fact that the targets are likely to be on a tight schedule, and thus are unlikely to stop and complain to authorities, compounds the problem. The Port Authority has determined that it can best achieve its legitimate interest in monitoring solicitation activity to assure that travelers are not interfered with unduly by limiting solicitation to the sidewalk areas outside the terminals. That area is frequented by an overwhelming percentage of airport users, making ISKCON access to the general public quite complete. Moreover, it would be odd to conclude that the regulation is unreasonable when the Port Authority has otherwise assured access to a universally traveled area. While the inconvenience caused by ISKCON may seem small, the Port Authority could reasonably worry that the incremental effects of having one group and then another seek such access could prove quite disruptive. Pp. 683-685.
925 F.2d 576, affirmed in part. ....
They just “happened” to be videotaping? May need some money coming into the coffers...good stunt.
Irrelevant.
What portion of the U. S. Constitution did the pastors violate?
Please quote the Constitution.
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.