St. Louis pays $80,000 for censoring Christians
Kenyan Obama
The city of St. Louis has agreed to pay $80,000 for censoring the speech
of Christians during a "gay" pride festival on city property, according
to the Alliance Defense Fund.
The law organization represented the plaintiffs in a case brought over
the censorship, and it announced yesterday it had voluntarily sought
dismissal of the lawsuit after the city's offending policy had been
struck down and the city agreed to pay damages and costs of the case.
"Christian groups shouldn't be banned from public areas for expressing
their beliefs," said Rick Nelson of the American Liberties Institute,
who served as lead counsel in the case and is allied with the ADF.
"We are pleased that the city of St. Louis now recognizes the First
Amendment rights of ministries who wish to share their viewpoint on
important social and moral issues at events taking place at public
locations," he said.
The city policy had been used to prohibit members of a Christian
ministry from distributing literature and speaking about their religious
viewpoint at an annual "PrideFest" celebrating homosexual behavior.
The case developed starting in June 2006 when members of Apple of His
Eye Ministries were threatened with arrest by St. Louis officials for
handing out Christian literature and speaking about their faith at Tower
Grove Park during the annual PrideFest event.
The lawsuit was filed in April 2008, and the court immediately issued a
preliminary injunction allowing the distribution of literature during
the 2008 PrideFest. Two weeks before the 2009 event, the court made the
injunction permanent.
The ADF said the order protects the ministry's distribution of
literature at all public parks, public squares and other public
locations in St. Louis, including public sidewalks.
The organization's "Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal" noted
negotiations with the city resulted in an agreement for the city to "pay
the total sum of $80,000 to satisfy all damages, attorneys' fees and
costs related to this litigation.
In his decision granting the original preliminary injunction, the judge
found, "While there may be attendees at PrideFest 2008 who may also
object to Plaintiffs' distribution of religious literature or expression
of religious views, their 'injury,' namely, the suffering of viewpoints
with which they may disagree, is outweighed by the restriction of
Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to express those views in a public
forum."
WND recently reported previously on similar cases. In Florida, several
cities holding festivals set up fenced areas as "free speech zones" for
Christians, keeping them away from the event itself.
Also, in Elmira, N.Y., a dispute developed when police threatened to
arrest three Christians if they did not remove a shirt and stop sharing
biblical messages during a "gay" pride event at a public park.
John Barnes wore a shirt with the message "Liberated from sin by the
blood of Jesus" to the Southern Tier Pride 2008 at Wisner Park � a June
14, 2008, event promoted as a celebration of homosexual, bisexual and
transgender lifestyles.
According to the complaint filed in a U.S. district court, Elmira police
Capt. Michael Marrone ordered Barnes to remove his shirt to prevent a
"negative atmosphere" at the event and arouse discomfort in other
attendees.
Barnes obeyed the officer and took off his shirt so he could remain at
the park without facing arrest.
Another Christian, Julian Raven, carried a Christian newsletter to the
event called the Elmira Protestor. Marrone threatened to arrest Raven if
he distributed the letter, saying it contained obscene or illegal
material, according to the complaint. Raven complied with the order.
Capt. James Wandell and Sgt. Sharon Moyer threatened a third Christian,
James DeFerio, with arrest for holding a sign on a public sidewalk
adjacent to the park. The sign read: "Thousands of ex-homosexuals have
experienced the life-changing love of Jesus Christ" and listed websites
for more information about ministry to ex-"gays."
The Master
> In his decision granting the original preliminary injunction, the judge
> found, "While there may be attendees at PrideFest 2008 who may also
> object to Plaintiffs' distribution of religious literature or expression
> of religious views, their 'injury,' namely, the suffering of viewpoints
> with which they may disagree, is outweighed by the restriction of
> Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to express those views in a public
> forum."
This is the only part I disagree with... The exposure to ideas other then
your own does NOT cause injury in any form. People attending the Pride
Fest may very well not like what this Christian group's literature, but
exposure to that literature does not cause injury. Denying the right to
distribute that literature is a violation of the first amendment, period.
To argue otherwise is to argue that the existance of the Pride Fest causes
some injury to the Christians.
Terry Lomax
shove unwanted "literature" into people's faces, people should have
the right to punch the Christians in the face without being charged
with any crime.
No surprise Christians would like being at Pridefest. A huge
percentage of Christians are closet homosexuals.
For years the VP Fair was ruined by Christian nutjobs handing people
religious propaganda. Most flyers ended up as litter.
Frankie Lee
**Let's say Christians maybe anti-social.But isn't it true that Free
Speech must be uphold,more important than any other considerations?
Billsey
Frankie,
You're forgetting something: according to Liberals and profligates, the
United States Constitution, in the First Amendment, guarantees Freedom of
Speech and Freedom of Religion to all people everywhere—except Christians.
No, their view is that Christians MUST be muzzled, murdered, assaulted,
ridiculed, slandered and in all other ways generally persecuted. And the
Christians must not be permitted to respond—ever.
_______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.lulu.com/billsey
St Louis Ghettos
news:66460e76-9e78-4932...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> The freedom should work both ways. If Christians have the right to
> shove unwanted "literature" into people's faces, people should have
> the right to punch the Christians in the face without being charged
> with any crime.
A pussy like you wouldn't have the fortitude to take such an action.
> No surprise Christians would like being at Pridefest. A huge
> percentage of Christians are closet homosexuals.
Your personal choice.
> For years the VP Fair was ruined by Christian nutjobs handing people
> religious propaganda. Most flyers ended up as litter.
Never mind the blacks robbing people in the parking lots.
Eric S. Harris
[snip]
> Denying the right to distribute that literature is a violation of the
> first amendment, period.
Actually, the First Amendment is about the Congress. Its expansion to
states and other governments in the United States is not supported by
the actual text of the Constitution as amended. "You could look it up."
[1]
The federal courts have said otherwise, but they got the Dred Scott case
wrong, too. [2] -Eric
[1] Here, for instance: http://preview.tinyurl.com/6as4v
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If I haven't
replied to an alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving
of correction; it's a big Internet: http://xkcd.com/386 May 2008: The
yahoo.com address has technical difficulties. Dec: Yahoo is fixing ...
Billsey
> The Master wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Denying the right to distribute that literature is a violation of the
>> first amendment, period.
>
> Actually, the First Amendment is about the Congress. Its expansion to
> states and other governments in the United States is not supported by
> the actual text of the Constitution as amended. "You could look it up."
That is only correct as far as it goes, but the fact of the matter lays
further down the road. In the first paragraph after the Preamble, the
Constitution grants ALL LAW-MAKING ABILITY EXCLUSIVELY TO CONGRESS AND NO
ONE ELSE in federal government. Therefore, when the first amendment states
that "Congress shall make no law ...", the ONLY entity legally allowed to
make federal law is barred from doing so regarding "...". Therefore, what is
really being said is that "No law shall be made (at all, by ANYONE in
federal government)" regarding "...".
In fact, Congress also has the power to DESTROY any and all federal courts
except the Supreme Court, but they also, in a very broad sense, have the
power to decide what the Supreme Court will and will not be allowed to rule
on. You might also remember that, during his time in office, the Supreme Court
ruled that Lincoln was acting unconstitutionally in some regard or other,
but Lincoln basically told them to go fly a kite, and did whatever it was
anyway—and the Supreme Court couldn't do anything about it.
It is about time that the rest of the federal government woke up and
realized that they have been cowing before a toothless, declawed tiger, the
only real danger from which is that it might gum them to death. The power of
creation of law is with the Congress and no one else; the power of execution
of law is with the Executive and no one else, leaving for the courts ONLY
the power to decide disputes, but without any CONSTITUTIONAL power to make
sure that those decisions are followed.
It COULD also be argued that neither state nor local authorities are
supposed to be making any laws that contradict the Constitution and MAYBE
even federal laws below the Constitution (not sure about that one, though).
All of which places silencing one group over any others on EXCEEDINGLY thin
ice. In other words, if you don't like what someone is saying GET OVER
YOURSELF—they have the right to say it.
_______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.lulu.com/billsey
Globalist
later, consider the pseudo-christians ,passing out their "I hate you"
literature, as merely amusing, some find them very sad, because
everyone else is enjoying the day, these folks are so motivated and
obsessed by sex that they are 'driven' nutzo to rant and rave. For
many it is the same annoyance of the Hare Krisna in the airport or the
Jehovah Wittnesses at the bus stop, where you are minding your own
business. It is the same irritation of someone trying to sell you
kittens in front of a grocery store. Amway, Tupperware or incense or
whatever it is, someone perceives you as a target for any kind of shit
they are selling.
Billsey
Thank you for confirming what a completely BIGOTTED idiot you are.
_______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.lulu.com/billsey
Eric S. Harris
> The freedom should work both ways. If Christians have the right to
> shove unwanted "literature" into people's faces, people should have
> the right to punch the Christians in the face without being charged
> with any crime.
Literature is not a fist. Not on my world, anyway. -Eric
Bobo Bonobo®
>
[snip]
I would be fine with the Christian groups going to Pridefest and
handing out anti-gay literature IF AND ONLY IF gays were allowed to
counter by handing out literature that graphically depicts same sex
sexual activity, and were allowed to give out such materials not only
at gay events, but at public Christan (or any other) events as well.
I also think that if anti-abortion groups can have signs with gory
abortion pix, then I should be allowed to have a sign graphically
depicting sexual intercourse. Why not? Maybe next year I'll attend
just to mess with the anti-gay folks. I could follow them around,
describing gay sex acts in detail, which is funny, because I'm hetero,
and probably don't have much more of a clue as to what gay sex is like
than the proselytizers do.
That could be even more fun than attending Life Chain with my sign
that reads:
REDUCE
ABORTION
HAVE MORE
ORAL SEX
--Bryan
Billsey
> <snip>
Yet more hate-filled anti-Christian bigotry.
_______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.lulu.com/billsey