Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**olympia**

Fateweaver wrote:In Christianity it's believed that Heaven is a lot better than Earth so in essence you could argue that he is doing what is best for his "child". He is bringing them someplace better.

Not very parsimonious way to do it eh?

**Soladrin**

Fateweaver wrote:In Christianity it's believed that Heaven is a lot better than Earth so in essence you could argue that he is doing what is best for his "child". He is bringing them someplace better.

A place better then earth discriminates?

**Orkeosaurus**

olympia wrote: * Careful consideration to the wording and/ or graphics that are placed on posters or signs should be considered. Threatening, vulgar or pornographic; words or images could prompt other citizens to complain causing police action.

What are you trying to say here? That calling a person a sinner is a threat? That the word "gay" is vulgar, or pornographic?

**olympia**

Orkeosaurus wrote:
olympia wrote: * Careful consideration to the wording and/ or graphics that are placed on posters or signs should be considered. Threatening, vulgar or pornographic; words or images could prompt other citizens to complain causing police action.
What are you trying to say here? That calling a person a sinner is a threat? That the word "gay" is vulgar, or pornographic?

Eh? I'm not saying anything. I'm just quoting the state, municipal, and county authorities. Telling someone, "You are going to burn!" is a threat, clearly.

**Arctik_Firangi**

Orkeosaurus wrote:
olympia wrote: * Careful consideration to the wording and/ or graphics that are placed on posters or signs should be considered. Threatening, vulgar or pornographic; words or images could prompt other citizens to complain causing police action.
What are you trying to say here? That calling a person a sinner is a threat? That the word "gay" is vulgar, or pornographic?

I would certainly say that calling someone a sinner is a threat. It's a threat equivalent to being brutally assaulted by a butterfly, but a threat nevertheless.

The point is, did he have them displayed on posters or signs?

**Fateweaver**

Thank God I live in a country where I "CAN" tell people homosexuality is a sin and not get arrested. Bitch slapped by gay people; sure but at least I won't go to jail for it.

**olympia**

Fateweaver wrote:Thank God I live in a country where I "CAN" tell people homosexuality is a sin and not get arrested. Bitch slapped by gay people; sure but at least I won't go to jail for it.

Thank the agnostic/atheistic/deist founding fathers instead.

**Nurglitch**

Fateweaver wrote:Thank God I live in a country where I "CAN" tell people homosexuality is a sin and not get arrested. Bitch slapped by gay people; sure but at least I won't go to jail for it.

I support your right to visit gay dungeons in your search for a daddy! Just remember to establish a safe-words (or a bicycle horn...)

**Frazzled**

olympia wrote:Here's "Free Speech" in Austin, Texas one of the most liberal cities in the U.S. and certainly Texas.

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/pace/prodemopick.htm

The Use of a Sidewalk for: Protest, Demonstration or Picketing

Protesting, demonstrations or picketing activities that uses the public sidewalk do not require a permit from the City.

There are rules that you must follow so as not to violate several laws:

* You can not block the sidewalk where it prevents the use by other citizens
----Thats an act, not speech and keeps your act from interfering with my acts.
* You can not block ingress or egress to the doors of the building
----Thats safety and keeps your act from interfering with my acts.
* You can not block driveways from the street to the property
----Thats an act and safety and keeps your act from interfering with my acts.
* You can not set up tables or other obstructions on the sidewalk
----Thats an act and keeps your act from interfering with my acts.
* You can not get into the street for any reason
----Thats an act and safetyand keeps your act from interfering with my acts.
* You can not get on “private property” without the permission of the property owner
----You're not getting thaty whole speech vs. trespass thing very well are ya?
* Careful consideration to the wording and/ or graphics that are placed on posters or signs should be considered. Threatening, vulgar or pornographic; words or images could prompt other citizens to complain causing police action.
----That means nothign disgusting or pornographic. Lets have some perspective shall we?
* Banners or signs may not be hung off of or attached to bridges over roadways; signs may be carried while walking on sidewalks over bridges.
----Thats an act and safetyand keeps your act from interfering with my acts.
To request the use of a public street to hold "March", a Parade Permit is required 10 days prior to the date of the event. Parade Permits are approved by APD – Special Events. The permit is at web site: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/police/parade.htm.

----They are default approvals. If you permit is denied absent another event or violating the above you can get it it overturned. Dude I freeking live here.

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

Again, this isn't some old man yelling "turn down the music, you damn kids!" It's a guy who genuinely wants people to be better (regardless of what side of his definition you fall on) who thinks he's accomplishing something. If I went around do something that you considered dangerous or harmful and you cared about what was happening, you'd probably try to warn me about it (again, regardless of what side of the issue I was on). Not everyone is Westboro Baptist Church nor is everyone a saint with the best of intentions. People should be judged more on intent than message, IMO. Yes, it's very sticky/unrealistic to define, but it's what actually matters. A Muslim delivering tracts door to door is a lot less bothersome than one who has a bomb strapped to him. Do they really both deserve the same societal judgment? As long as there are gay pride rallies AND public church services in the same universe, no one should care. Freaking coexist, universe! :(

**Frazzled**

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:Of course homosexuality is a sin. It's a hot sweaty man-swuzzling sin. Mmmh.

Ah, yes. This helps me to clarify what I said... Just because you have values, it doesn't mean that anyone has a responsibility to care. Non-self-justifying-christian-homosexuals know that they are sinning in the eyes of a group they don't have to care about. The poor old religious ducky is probably a bit more unsure because he feels he does have a legitimate responsibility to at least critique certain lifestyles... but then some Christians don't do this at all either.
Social conflicts, from this example all the way up the scale to all-out war, are a tricky one. When someone has legal authority to take down the other, the Cold War begins... and as soon as someone fires a shot, the person with the bigger cops/nukes wins out, however unfair it is. What I want to know is where the Insistent, Stepladder-weilding, Unkempt and Rude Person's police liason officer was during all of this.

Frazzled, enough with the 'it doesn't apply to you' crap. Number One, it's crap, and Number Two, if my neighbours are nuking each other, I want to know about it!

And if they were nuking each other, you'd have a right to. Otherwise your point is as full of crap as the local DMV.

**Kilkrazy**

It's not the effect on the accused group, it is the possibility of arousing passions in other parties.

Otherwise no-one would give a fig about propaganda or Muslim extremist preaching.

Are Muslims allowed to preach extremism in the USA? I assume they are.

**Frazzled**

olympia wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
olympia wrote: * Careful consideration to the wording and/ or graphics that are placed on posters or signs should be considered. Threatening, vulgar or pornographic; words or images could prompt other citizens to complain causing police action.
What are you trying to say here? That calling a person a sinner is a threat? That the word "gay" is vulgar, or pornographic?

Eh? I'm not saying anything. I'm just quoting the state, municipal, and county authorities. Telling someone, "You are going to burn!" is a threat, clearly.

No you couldn't be more wrong.
The threat has to be 1) immediate; 2) to a reasonable have the means to carry out such a threat.

I hope you get hit by a rock-not a threat.

I am going to bean you with this rock-potential threat.

You're going to hell-not a threat.

I am going to ake this AK-47 ans send you to hell-definite threat.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:It's not the effect on the accused group, it is the possibility of arousing passions in other parties.

Otherwise no-one would give a fig about propaganda or Muslim extremist preaching.

Are Muslims allowed to preach extremism in the USA? I assume they are.

Yep.

**Orkeosaurus**

olympia wrote:Telling someone, "You are going to burn [in hell]!" is a threat, clearly.

No, it's not. Not even close. The court would throw that interpretation of the statute out so fast it would break a window on the way out.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:I would certainly say that calling someone a sinner is a threat. It's a threat equivalent to being brutally assaulted by a butterfly, but a threat nevertheless.

Firstly, threats do not carry legal weight if a person has no observable ability to act on them. Secondly, telling someone they will come to harm if they persue a certain action is not a threat in any case, unless you are telling them that you will be the one to harm them. Telling someone that if they will get hit by a train if they stand on the train tracks is not a threat, telling someone that they will get killed by Bigfoot if they go to Colorado is not a threat, telling someone that they will be arrested by the police for an action is not a threat, and telling someone that they will suffer spiritual retribution for homosexuality is not a threat.

Also, regarding British law, at least: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/292715.page

**Arctik_Firangi**

Frazzled wrote:
Arctik_Firangi wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:Of course homosexuality is a sin. It's a hot sweaty man-swuzzling sin. Mmmh.

Ah, yes. This helps me to clarify what I said... Just because you have values, it doesn't mean that anyone has a responsibility to care. Non-self-justifying-christian-homosexuals know that they are sinning in the eyes of a group they don't have to care about. The poor old religious ducky is probably a bit more unsure because he feels he does have a legitimate responsibility to at least critique certain lifestyles... but then some Christians don't do this at all either.
Social conflicts, from this example all the way up the scale to all-out war, are a tricky one. When someone has legal authority to take down the other, the Cold War begins... and as soon as someone fires a shot, the person with the bigger cops/nukes wins out, however unfair it is. What I want to know is where the Insistent, Stepladder-weilding, Unkempt and Rude Person's police liason officer was during all of this.

Frazzled, enough with the 'it doesn't apply to you' crap. Number One, it's crap, and Number Two, if my neighbours are nuking each other, I want to know about it!

And if they were nuking each other, you'd have a right to. Otherwise your point is as full of crap as the local DMV.

The local transit authority here may be full of crap too, but that doesn't apply to you. How remarkably irrelevant of me to say so. Not even the Crotchety Grumbling Old Coot police liason officer can liase you out of that one.

**olympia**

Frazzled wrote:
olympia wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
olympia wrote: * Careful consideration to the wording and/ or graphics that are placed on posters or signs should be considered. Threatening, vulgar or pornographic; words or images could prompt other citizens to complain causing police action.
What are you trying to say here? That calling a person a sinner is a threat? That the word "gay" is vulgar, or pornographic?

Eh? I'm not saying anything. I'm just quoting the state, municipal, and county authorities. Telling someone, "You are going to burn!" is a threat, clearly.

No you couldn't be more wrong.
The threat has to be 1) immediate; 2) to a reasonable have the means to carry out such a threat.

Frazzled, if you're a half-way decent attorney you should be able to get me a TRO against someone if I "feel" threatened, right?

So the appropriate response to "You're going to burn!" is: "When?" Or produce a marijuana cigarette and say, "But not until I get home."

**Nurglitch**

Speaking of Islam, there was an imam in Toronto recently that used an arabic figure of speech that went something along the lines of "Please God, allow the inequity of the kuffar to destroy them!" That's paraphrased, by the way, though I can probably dig up the speech. Essentially it expresses the hope that the non-believers' non-belief comes back to bite them. It's on the level with a Christian preacher telling people that homosexuality is a sin, but given that it applied to non-moslems there was considerably more outcry.

Right, I believe this link covers the Imam and the comments to which I was referring.

**Arctik_Firangi**

Incidentally, making a member of a group, organisation or family feel uncomfortable about their beliefs constitutes a criminal threat. We're all part of some sort of family... and a lot of people have cases here.

**Frazzled**

I don't know if we're agreeing or disagreeing... so I'l add this note.

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:
olympia wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
olympia wrote: * Careful consideration to the wording and/ or graphics that are placed on posters or signs should be considered. Threatening, vulgar or pornographic; words or images could prompt other citizens to complain causing police action.
What are you trying to say here? That calling a person a sinner is a threat? That the word "gay" is vulgar, or pornographic?

Eh? I'm not saying anything. I'm just quoting the state, municipal, and county authorities. Telling someone, "You are going to burn!" is a threat, clearly.

No you couldn't be more wrong.
The threat has to be 1) immediate; 2) to a reasonable have the means to carry out such a threat.

I hope you get hit by a rock-not a threat.

I am going to bean you with this rock-potential threat.

You're going to hell-not a threat.

I am going to ake this AK-47 ans send you to hell-definite threat.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:It's not the effect on the accused group, it is the possibility of arousing passions in other parties.

Otherwise no-one would give a fig about propaganda or Muslim extremist preaching.

Are Muslims allowed to preach extremism in the USA? I assume they are.

Yep.

There you are. Different laws in the USA and UK.

**Frazzled**

olympia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
olympia wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
olympia wrote: * Careful consideration to the wording and/ or graphics that are placed on posters or signs should be considered. Threatening, vulgar or pornographic; words or images could prompt other citizens to complain causing police action.
What are you trying to say here? That calling a person a sinner is a threat? That the word "gay" is vulgar, or pornographic?

Eh? I'm not saying anything. I'm just quoting the state, municipal, and county authorities. Telling someone, "You are going to burn!" is a threat, clearly.

No you couldn't be more wrong.
The threat has to be 1) immediate; 2) to a reasonable have the means to carry out such a threat.

Frazzled, if you're a half-way decent attorney you should be able to get me a TRO against someone if I "feel" threatened, right?

So the appropriate response to "You're going to burn!" is: "When?" Or produce a marijuana cigarette and say, "But not until I get home."

Only if you were boinking said person. Come on if you know what a TRO is you, you sure as hell know what they are for. Don't make me whip out Godzilla fail!

**Orkeosaurus**

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Incidentally, making a member of a group, organisation or family feel uncomfortable about their beliefs constitutes a criminal threat. We're all part of some sort of family... and a lot of people have cases here.

If this were true nearly all communication would be a threat. Although I have no idea where this is supposed to be the law.

**Frazzled**

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Incidentally, making a member of a group, organisation or family feel uncomfortable about their beliefs constitutes a criminal threat. We're all part of some sort of family... and a lot of people have cases here.

What country has that nonsense?

**Orkeosaurus**

Nurglitch wrote:Speaking of Islam, there was an imam in Toronto recently that used an arabic figure of speech that went something along the lines of "Please God, allow the inequity of the kuffar to destroy them!" That's paraphrased, by the way, though I can probably dig up the speech. Essentially it expresses the hope that the non-believers' non-belief comes back to bite them. It's on the level with a Christian preacher telling people that homosexuality is a sin, but given that it applied to non-moslems there was considerably more outcry.

Yeah, this seems to be no different from the general concept of "karma", or even the concept of a person being undone by their flaws. It's not really a threat.

**Arctik_Firangi**

Frazzled wrote:
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Incidentally, making a member of a group, organisation or family feel uncomfortable about their beliefs constitutes a criminal threat. We're all part of some sort of family... and a lot of people have cases here.

What country has that nonsense?

Mine, that rainy place near Europe, most of yours and interestingly, not Canada. Is Texas its own country yet?

**Nurglitch**

Exactly. It's not a threat, yet people found it threatening. The analogy being that being told that you're a sinner, and having some inkling of what happens to sinners, can seem threatening even if the person doing the telling has no intention of carrying it out. It's much more like harassing someone rather than threatening them.

**Falconlance**

I hate all religion equally... this on the other hand looks unfair..

Christian offends nobody in general and gets arrested.

Police offend muslims by putting up a billboard with a dog on it, and they take it down and apologize profusely.

Oh U.K., you so crazy!

Is Texas its own country yet?

I wish.

**Fateweaver**

At least the US isn't the only country kissing Muslim ass.

**Orkeosaurus**

Nurglitch wrote:Exactly. It's not a threat, yet people found it threatening. The analogy being that being told that you're a sinner, and having some inkling of what happens to sinners, can seem threatening even if the person doing the telling has no intention of carrying it out. It's much more like harassing someone rather than threatening them.

I think calling it harassment would be going to far, unless the person was repeatedly targeting an individual or group who had asked to be left alone with the message. I would call it "annoying", in most cases.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Incidentally, making a member of a group, organisation or family feel uncomfortable about their beliefs constitutes a criminal threat. We're all part of some sort of family... and a lot of people have cases here.

What country has that nonsense?

Mine, that rainy place near Europe, most of yours and interestingly, not Canada. Is Texas its own country yet?

Do you have a more... uh... exact citation of the law you're describing?

**Fateweaver**

How is it that white supremacist groups can get permission to peaceful protest if doing so is apparently a criminal action because they make the minorities uncomfortable.

Making someone feel uncomfortable about who they are isn't a crime unless you threaten them with harm for who they are or harass them over who they are.

With all these asinine laws I'm seeing regarding freedom of expression and speech (which I know our Bill of Rights doesn't pertain) makes me love America more and more.

Yeesh.