Man arrested for reading the bible in public outloud,

[LuvRPgrl]

IMAGINE he had been reading the koran, which is a piece lying crap book anyways.
http://capoliticalnews.com/2012/01/16/men-arrested-for-publicly-reading-bible-at-dmv/

police say he was arrested for disrupting an open business, yet the DMV was closed at the time.

[Wind Song]

IMAGINE he had been reading the koran, which is a piece lying crap book anyways.
http://capoliticalnews.com/2012/01/16/men-arrested-for-publicly-reading-bible-at-dmv/

police say he was arrested for disrupting an open business, yet the DMV was closed at the time.


Not this old story again.:lame2:

[Abbey Marie]

Not this old story again.:lame2:

It's not old, and it's certainly not lame. Do you have anything of substance to add?

[Wind Song]

It's not old, and it's certainly not lame. Do you have anything of substance to add?

Sigh. This is old and it's lame.

The premise is that "testifying" at the DMV and on government property is "free religious speech" and the man should not have been arrested. What's not mentioned is that the provocateur brought a video camera in order to film his own arrest. (He'd repeatedly graced DMV customers with his sermons and was asked to get a permit and do it outside.)

Here's how I feel. I wouldn't want some guy screaming Revelations at me when I'm already aggravated at the slow service at the DMV. People ought to preach to the choir. Believe me, if it was a Muslim calling DMV customers to daily prayer he wouldn't have just been arrested. He would have had the crap beat out of him.

Now, that's what I remember of the story and it's my opinion.

[jimnyc]

Sigh. This is old and it's lame.

The premise is that "testifying" at the DMV and on government property is "free religious speech" and the man should not have been arrested. What's not mentioned is that the provocateur brought a video camera in order to film his own arrest. (He'd repeatedly graced DMV customers with his sermons and was asked to get a permit and do it outside.)

Here's how I feel. I wouldn't want some guy screaming Revelations at me when I'm already aggravated at the slow service at the DMV. People ought to preach to the choir. Believe me, if it was a Muslim calling DMV customers to daily prayer he wouldn't have just been arrested. He would have had the crap beat out of him.

Now, that's what I remember of the story and it's my opinion.

Probably comparable to folks who would like to go places and not see disgraceful protests about queer rights.

[Wind Song]

Two separate issues, Jim. This has nothing to do with gay rights. In this case, it is the right of the DMV to request a permit and arrest him when he didn't versus his perceived free speech and religious rights.

[jimnyc]

Two separate issues, Jim. This has nothing to do with gay rights. In this case, it is the right of the DMV to request a permit and arrest him when he didn't versus his perceived free speech and religious rights.

It's the right of people to be able to go out in public and speak their beliefs. You'll speak out against people doing so because you don't want to hear it, but I'm sure you have no issue when the queer community did so all over the country based on "H8" in Cali, and do you think all of these people protesting all over had permits? What about all the queers doing so on the steps of congress? If you allow it for one, allow for others. If you claim it's wrong because "I wouldn't want some guy screaming Revelations at me when I'm already aggravated at the slow service at the DMV" - then understand people might not want to hear it from queers after a hard day of work.

[Wind Song]

It's the right of people to be able to go out in public and speak their beliefs. You'll speak out against people doing so because you don't want to hear it, but I'm sure you have no issue when the queer community did so all over the country based on "H8" in Cali, and do you think all of these people protesting all over had permits? What about all the queers doing so on the steps of congress? If you allow it for one, allow for others. If you claim it's wrong because "I wouldn't want some guy screaming Revelations at me when I'm already aggravated at the slow service at the DMV" - then understand people might not want to hear it from queers after a hard day of work.

Stop putting gay rights into this thread. It's off topic.

[jimnyc]

Stop putting gay rights into this thread. It's off topic.

Hypocrisy knows no thread boundaries.

[Wind Song]

Hypocrisy knows no thread boundaries.

Look, Jim, yes. I'm a lesbian. So what? Gay rights has nothing to do with this topic.

[jimnyc]

Look, Jim, yes. I'm a lesbian. So what? Gay rights has nothing to do with this topic.

I can't make comparisons? Wasn't it ok in another thread to interject with "breast cancer" to further a point? I'm pointing out stances by gays, as to the rights of people to speak out in public, and using it to further a point, that is your hypocrisy.

You just don't like anything posted that you disagree with or points out you being wrong or hypocritical.

I'm of the belief that if queers can go anywhere they want, and on government property, and preach to others about what is right and what is wrong - then so should a believer of the Bible.

[Wind Song]

This incident, where the guy was arrested at the DMV, has nothing to do with gay rights. Jim, if you want to talk about gay rights, start a thread on it.

The issue is, does LE have a right to arrest someone for demonstrating on public property without a permit. The guy who was arrested had been at the DMV repeatedly and was considered a nuisance.

For some, the issue is they want to shout the Bible at people from any place on earth, regardless.

[jimnyc]

This incident, where the guy was arrested at the DMV, has nothing to do with gay rights. Jim, if you want to talk about gay rights, start a thread on it.

The issue is does LE have a right to arrest someone that they had previously asked to get a permit before demonstrating on their property.

For some, the issue is they want to shout the Bible at people from any place on earth, regardless.

Why do you think it's ok for those involved in the queer movement to be able to shout about it from any place on Earth, so long as it's not from the Bible?

Sorry, pointing out direct hypocrisy is NOT off topic. We're speaking of someone trying to speak their agenda, freely, whether on or off government property. I don't see how you can possibly condemn one group without the other, unless of course its the subject of what they are preaching that you disagree with, and not the act itself.

[Wind Song]

I will NOT discuss gay rights on this thread because it is off topic.

[jimnyc]

I will NOT discuss gay rights on this thread because it is off topic.

"I will NOT discuss gay rights in this thread because it goes directly against what I'm complaining about here".

[Wind Song]

I didn't start the thread. I offered my view after Abbey asked me to. You're acting like a bully today, Jim. Try the obedience trip with your wife and let me know how it works out for you.

[jimnyc]

I didn't start the thread. I offered my view after Abbey asked me to. You're acting like a bully today, Jim. Try the obedience trip with your wife and let me know how it works out for you.

Posting my POV on things is hardly being a bully. You're a bit of a drama queen. And please, stop bringing my wife into threads when you get upset.

[Wind Song]

Posting my POV on things is hardly being a bully. You're a bit of a drama queen. And please, stop bringing my wife into threads when you get upset.


Threatening to ban me because I'm getting the better of you in an argument is bullying. Attempting to pressure me to discuss gay right's on a thread that has nothing with gay rights is bullying.

I will leave your poor wife out of it. She must be a saint.

[tailfins]

Not this old story again.:lame2:

In this case you are correct. This happened early in 2011. I would be interested in the final disposition of the case though.

[jimnyc]

Threatening to ban me because I'm getting the better of you in an argument is bullying. Attempting to pressure me to discuss gay right's on a thread that has nothing with gay rights is bullying.

I will leave your poor wife out of it. She must be a saint.

I told you I would remove you from a thread, not ban you, and it was because you were lying about things I said. You know this, as you even apologized later on, proving I was correct. No logical person on this board will want you making things up about them. That's not bullying, that's expecting someone to do the right and hoonest thing.

Pressuring you nothing. I simply pointed out your hypocrisy. If you don't want to discuss what I say THEN DON'T FUCKING KEEP QUOTING MY POSTS AND REPLYING. Until such time, we both are entitled to our opinions and can point out things that go towards the others persons stance on issues.

My wife IS a saint. She's also got a brain.

[Noir]

Mkay, so the nub of rthe story - They were in public, but were they on public or private land?

[Wind Song]

In this case you are correct. This happened early in 2011. I would be interested in the final disposition of the case though.

Why do people drag these old cases up over and over again?

[jimnyc]

Mkay, so the nub of rthe story - They were in public, but were they on public or private land?

Outside of a DMV from what I gather, which is government property.

[Wind Song]

Mkay, so the nub of rthe story - They were in public, but were they on public or private land?


Public land, which required a permit. The guy who was arrested refused to get one. He provoked his own arrest and was on hand with camcorder to record it.

[jimnyc]

Public land, which required a permit. The guy who was arrested refused to get one. He provoked his own arrest and was on hand with camcorder to record it.

Noir - in addition to what WN posted above, it's the exact same type of activity you saw all over America when the California gay marriage movement was going on. They held protests and marches all over public and government property. Many of these marches were also recorded by those involved in the events. I can't recall seeing anyone arrested at these events for freely speaking their POV to passerby's or the public in general. But, I WOULD think that whatever my opinion may be about whether they can or cannot be able to do so, would be the same towards both set of people, not biased towards someone preaching something different.

[Noir]

Noir - in addition to what WN posted above, it's the exact same type of activity you saw all over America when the California gay marriage movement was going on. They held protests and marches all over public and government property. Many of these marches were also recorded by those involved in the events. I can't recall seeing anyone arrested at these events for freely speaking their POV to passerby's or the public in general. But, I WOULD think that whatever my opinion may be about whether they can or cannot be able to do so, would be the same towards both set of people, not biased towards someone preaching something different.

Mkays, and i agree that they should both be treated equally, but you can't not arrest this guy because they didn't arrest other people that they should of in the past. The guy (from what i can tell) broke the law and was taken in for it, a non-story.

[DragonStryk72]

Noir - in addition to what WN posted above, it's the exact same type of activity you saw all over America when the California gay marriage movement was going on. They held protests and marches all over public and government property. Many of these marches were also recorded by those involved in the events. I can't recall seeing anyone arrested at these events for freely speaking their POV to passerby's or the public in general. But, I WOULD think that whatever my opinion may be about whether they can or cannot be able to do so, would be the same towards both set of people, not biased towards someone preaching something different.

1) This was not a protest, so we already have a weak analogy.

2) Those that were protesting in your scenario abided by the law.

3) This man did not, and specifically kept committing an act he knew to be illegal, for the intention of getting arrested, so he got his wish.

Just as I have no issue when OWS protestors getting arrested when they do not keep their people in line, I don't have a problem with someone getting arrested because they refuse to either get a permit or cease and desist. This man was repeatedly told what he needed to do to be allowed to continue, and purposely didn't do it, so honestly, I've got no sympathy.

[Wind Song]

Fox News "Happening Now" recycled the story which is a year old.

[jimnyc]

1) This was not a protest, so we already have a weak analogy.

2) Those that were protesting in your scenario abided by the law.

3) This man did not, and specifically kept committing an act he knew to be illegal, for the intention of getting arrested, so he got his wish.

Just as I have no issue when OWS protestors getting arrested when they do not keep their people in line, I don't have a problem with someone getting arrested because they refuse to either get a permit or cease and desist. This man was repeatedly told what he needed to do to be allowed to continue, and purposely didn't do it, so honestly, I've got no sympathy.

I was speaking of Wing Nut complaining about having to hear the person speaking. That's no different at all than the public who had/have to hear the stuff all the time from people in the gay movement. If the guy went and got a permit, would his annoyance to her be any different, now that he was doing so in a legal manner? Of course not.

[Abbey Marie]

From the article, this wasn't done in the DMV, it was done outside on the street:


The two men were arrested for reading from the Bible to roughly 50 individuals waiting in line outside the DMV.

If the DMV doesn't want people interacting with their customers, they should provide for more room inside for them to wait, or hurry the hell up with their services so lines this long don't form.

Can someone link me up with the 2011 date? The OP's article indicates it happened just about 2 months ago in January, 2012.

[Wind Song]

From the article, this wasn't done in the DMV, it was done outside on the street:



If the DMV doesn't want people interacting with their customers, they should provide for more room inside for them to wait, or hurry the hell up with their services so lines this long don't form.

Can someone link me up with the 2011 date? The OP's article indicates it happened just about 2 months ago in January, 2012.

Initially, the guy did it inside the DMV. April 23, 2011.

[Abbey Marie]

Initially, the guy did it inside the DMV. April 23, 2011.

I need a link, please. I didn't see that in the article posted.

[Abbey Marie]

I was speaking of Wing Nut complaining about having to hear the person speaking. That's no different at all than the public who had/have to hear the stuff all the time from people in the gay movement. If the guy went and got a permit, would his annoyance to her be any different, now that he was doing so in a legal manner? Of course not.

I agree. Your analogy of gay protests is spot on. There is no reason why you shouldn't draw the comparison here.

[Wind Song]

I need a link, please. I didn't see that in the article posted.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FruQO8qaw9c

[darin]

Funny to see WindSong complaining about being off-topic? lol.

:)

The guy is a tax payer. Was he on land he paid for?

Look - the guy's methods are lame. His message? Lost. Was he committing a crime? No way - well...scratch that. The day will come where Terrorists are the good guys, and Christians are the enemy.

[cadet]

I never knew our freedom of speech wasn't here anymore...

I'm gonna get my soap box and yell at uncle sam, see what they do about it. :rolleyes: