If you see any queers kissing, just call the cops

[Smoke]

Gay couple cuffed, cited after kiss near LDS temple

The pair crossed the plaza holding hands, Aune said. About 20 feet from the edge of the plaza, Aune said he stopped, put his arm on Jones' back and kissed him on the cheek.

Several security guards then arrived and asked the pair to leave, saying that public displays of affection are not allowed on the church property, Aune and Jones said. They protested, saying they often see other couples holding hands and kissing there, said Jones

"We were kind of standing up for ourselves," Jones said. "It was obviously because we were gay."

The guards put Jones on the ground and handcuffed him, he said. Aune said he was also cuffed roughly, and suffered bruises and a swollen wrist. The injuries did not require medical treatment, Snyder said.

Farah said the two men "became argumentative," refused to leave, and used profanity.

Aune said he felt "upset" and "affronted" during the approximately five-minute exchange.

"When I was handcuffed, I was very ****** and I unleashed a flurry of profanities," he said.

Police arrived about 10:30 p.m. They spoke with the couple and two security guards before issuing the citations, Snyder said. The pair was banned from LDS Church Headquarters' campus for six months, Farah confirmed. That does not include the City Creek or any other properties.

​

****************************

Two gay men kicked out of Chico's Tacos restaurant for kissing

The five men, all gay, were placing their order at the Chico's Tacos restaurant on Montwood when the men kissed. All five sat down, but the two guards at the restaurant told them to leave.

De Leon quoted one of the guards as saying he didn't allow "that ****** stuff" in the restaurant.

De Leon said they refused to leave and called police for help. He said an officer arrived about an hour later in response to calls from his group and the guards.

As they waited for police, the guards directed other anti-gay slurs at them, he said.
Already angry at the guards, de Leon and his group became angrier at the two police officers who arrived.

"I went up to the police officer to tell him what was going on, and he didn't want to hear my side," de Leon said. "He wanted to hear the security guard's side first."

Police declined to identify the officers who responded, but department spokesman Javier Sambrano described one officer as relatively inexperienced.

De Leon said the officer told the group it was illegal for two men or two women to kiss in public. The five men, he said, were told they could be cited for homosexual conduct -- a law the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.

​

 

[TheKnight]

Gay couple cuffed, cited after kiss near LDS temple

The pair crossed the plaza holding hands, Aune said. About 20 feet from the edge of the plaza, Aune said he stopped, put his arm on Jones' back and kissed him on the cheek.

Several security guards then arrived and asked the pair to leave, saying that public displays of affection are not allowed on the church property, Aune and Jones said. They protested, saying they often see other couples holding hands and kissing there, said Jones

"We were kind of standing up for ourselves," Jones said. "It was obviously because we were gay."

The guards put Jones on the ground and handcuffed him, he said. Aune said he was also cuffed roughly, and suffered bruises and a swollen wrist. The injuries did not require medical treatment, Snyder said.

Farah said the two men "became argumentative," refused to leave, and used profanity.

Aune said he felt "upset" and "affronted" during the approximately five-minute exchange.

"When I was handcuffed, I was very ****** and I unleashed a flurry of profanities," he said.

Police arrived about 10:30 p.m. They spoke with the couple and two security guards before issuing the citations, Snyder said. The pair was banned from LDS Church Headquarters' campus for six months, Farah confirmed. That does not include the City Creek or any other properties.

​

****************************

Two gay men kicked out of Chico's Tacos restaurant for kissing

The five men, all gay, were placing their order at the Chico's Tacos restaurant on Montwood when the men kissed. All five sat down, but the two guards at the restaurant told them to leave.

De Leon quoted one of the guards as saying he didn't allow "that ****** stuff" in the restaurant.

De Leon said they refused to leave and called police for help. He said an officer arrived about an hour later in response to calls from his group and the guards.

As they waited for police, the guards directed other anti-gay slurs at them, he said.
Already angry at the guards, de Leon and his group became angrier at the two police officers who arrived.

"I went up to the police officer to tell him what was going on, and he didn't want to hear my side," de Leon said. "He wanted to hear the security guard's side first."

Police declined to identify the officers who responded, but department spokesman Javier Sambrano described one officer as relatively inexperienced.

De Leon said the officer told the group it was illegal for two men or two women to kiss in public. The five men, he said, were told they could be cited for homosexual conduct -- a law the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.

​

Both cases of private property owners not wanting to allow particular activity to occur on their premises. In the first case, the two should not have gone to the temple to kiss.

In both cases, allegations of police brutality will probably fail. In the first case, the police generally don't like people who argue with them and if you move in their direction they will almost always take you to the ground. It may be excessive, but they'd rather get a few days suspension than end up dead because they failed to stop an argumentative person who was making motions towards them.

In the second case, police will always talk to the person in uniform first. They will always talk to the owner of the location that they are at first. Unless there's two of them (in which case one would talk to each party).

Either way, in both cases it appears that the media istrying to make homosexuals look like victims.

 

[Smoke]

Both cases of private property owners not wanting to allow particular activity to occur on their premises. In the first case, the two should not have gone to the temple to kiss.

They didn't go "to the temple" to kiss. They kissed in what was formerly a public plaza until it was acquired by the LDS Church in a rather shady deal, is still used as a public thoroughfare, and is the site of frequent displays of public affection by straight couples. Nevertheless, I agree that the Church had the right to ask them to leave. I do not agree that the Church had the right to handcuff them.

In the second case, it was not the property owner but a contract security guard who took the initiative, and both he and the responding officers were in clear violation of an El Paso city ordinance.

Either way, in both cases it appears that the media istrying to make homosexuals look like victims.

Media is plural.

 

[Father Heathen]

Police raid at gay club in Texas stirs ugly memories - Los Angeles Times

 

[Father Heathen]

TheKnight, if were you were take the mentioned instances and replace "gay" with "jew", would your response remain the same?

 

[Magic Man]

Both cases of private property owners not wanting to allow particular activity to occur on their premises. In the first case, the two should not have gone to the temple to kiss.

To a degree. As Smoke said, they didn't go to the temple to kiss, they just kissed in front of it. The biggest problem here is that if this were two black people getting kicked off property for being black, I guarantee there'd be a bigger outcry, and you'd probably be one of them. Sure, private property is one thing, but there are also discrimination laws.

Either way, in both cases it appears that the media istrying to make homosexuals look like victims.

Um...that's probably because they are.

 

[Sunstone]

Thank goodness some fine folks are busy making society safe for me by crushing these outrageous displays of affection. I sure know I'll sleep a little bit safer tonight because of their tireless efforts. I can only say, "bravo", to the fearless people who stand between my delicate sensibilities and the pressing threat of interracial marriage...no, I meant to say marrying Jews...um...or was it the Homosexual Menace this time? Gads! I need a database to keep track of my bigotry!

 

[zenzero]

Friends,
The question here is basically to do with *GAY* people.
Personally am neither for nor against sex.
Though homosexuality may be at odds with societal norms personally feel it is a personal matter in which society should be commpasionate towards such people and allow them to realise their true nature to flower.
Life has no goals and neither is there anything right or wrong.
Love & rgds

 

[TheKnight]

They didn't go "to the temple" to kiss. They kissed in what was formerly a public plaza until it was acquired by the LDS Church in a rather shady deal, is still used as a public thoroughfare, and is the site of frequent displays of public affection by straight couples. Nevertheless, I agree that the Church had the right to ask them to leave. I do not agree that the Church had the right to handcuff them.

Technically, if it's private property the security guards did have the right to handcuff them when they didn't leave after being asked to. Being handcuffed really isn't that big a deal.

In the second case, it was not the property owner but a contract security guard who took the initiative, and both he and the responding officers were in clear violation of an El Paso city ordinance.

The officers should have enforced the city ordinance.

 

[TheKnight]

TheKnight, if were you were take the mentioned instances and replace "gay" with "jew", would your response remain the same?

To a degree. As Smoke said, they didn't go to the temple to kiss, they just kissed in front of it. The biggest problem here is that if this were two black people getting kicked off property for being black, I guarantee there'd be a bigger outcry, and you'd probably be one of them. Sure, private property is one thing, but there are also discrimination laws.

Private property is private property. The government has no right to tell a person what he/she can/can't do on their own property. No matter who the person was being told to leave, I would still uphold the companies' right to their property. Indeed I commented similarly on that thread about the kids at that swim camp.

 

[Comicaze247]

The government has no right to tell a person what he/she can/can't do on their own property.

Starting a meth lab = illegal. Government will bust you for it, even though it's on your own property.
Growing marijuana = illegal. Government will bust you for it, even though it's on your own property.
Practicing discrimination of any kind = illegal. Government . . . won't do ****?

 

[Smoke]

Technically, if it's private property the security guards did have the right to handcuff them when they didn't leave after being asked to. Being handcuffed really isn't that big a deal.

Actually, it is -- legally speaking. And I speak as someone who has been handcuffed a number of times and is able to take it in his stride.

 

[Smoke]

Private property is private property. The government has no right to tell a person what he/she can/can't do on their own property. No matter who the person was being told to leave, I would still uphold the companies' right to their property.

There is such a thing as proportion.

The next time a kid throws a ball onto your lawn, knock him to the ground and handcuff him. See where it gets you.

When your sister knocks on my door to offer me the opportunity to buy Girl Scout cookies, and I knock her down and handcuff her, agree with me that you have no right to tell me what I can do on my own property.

 

[TheKnight]

Starting a meth lab = illegal. Government will bust you for it, even though it's on your own property.
Growing marijuana = illegal. Government will bust you for it, even though it's on your own property.
Practicing discrimination of any kind = illegal. Government . . . won't do ****?

I find it interesting that you cite drug examples (drugs shouldn't be illegal).

I would have said that murdering a person on private property is illegal. (that is if I were arguing against myself).

Also, showing me examples of what the government does isn't really an argument since I already know that the government crosses its lines. It's job as far as law enforcement is to provide for the safety of the people. Not tell people how to behave on their property.

Actually, it is -- legally speaking. And I speak as someone who has been handcuffed a number of times and is able to take it in his stride.

Legally speaking? In California, getting handcuffed doesn't mean anything. The cops handcuff everyone out here (during the course of investigating). It's a safety measure. People don't like getting handcuffed, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for a police officer to handcuff someone that could be a potential threat (like someone who is breaking the law by trespassing and being argumentative with the police).

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

They didn't go "to the temple" to kiss. They kissed in what was formerly a public plaza until it was acquired by the LDS Church in a rather shady deal, is still used as a public thoroughfare, and is the site of frequent displays of public affection by straight couples. Nevertheless, I agree that the Church had the right to ask them to leave. I do not agree that the Church had the right to handcuff them.

In the second case, it was not the property owner but a contract security guard who took the initiative, and both he and the responding officers were in clear violation of an El Paso city ordinance.

Media is plural.

I agree with everything you said here, although I would add that if the church owned a public thoroughfare they shouldn't be allowed to attach church policies to it. It's one thing to attach policy to private property but public areas should be above that. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[gnomon]

The issue of private property not withstanding.......

If the claim is that no public displays of affection are allowed, this couple was arrested and other couples, gay or not, have shown public displays of affection prior under the rule without being arrested it is textbook discrimination and they should sue the property owners out of their property claim.

As far as the general principle of a public thoroughfare. If it's purpose remains a public thoroughfare then the property owner, never mind who, should obey all public access laws and not be allowed to create special privileges, as the Church apparently did in this case, for or against one class of people.

Wasn't one of the biggest issue against gay people was creating special privileges for them. Now it has become apparent that it's giving up special privileges that is the real issue for these fools.

 

[linwood]

Either way, in both cases it appears that the media istrying to make homosexuals look like victims.

They are victims.

Legalities aside this would never have happened in either case if the kiss was hetero.

I`m aware the property owners and security personnel here are within their rights.
That does not make it "right" however.

This would never happened in either case if the kiss was hetero, and that`s the whole point.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The issue of private property not withstanding.......

If the claim is that no public displays of affection are allowed, this couple was arrested and other couples, gay or not, have shown public displays of affection prior under the rule without being arrested it is textbook discrimination and they should sue the property owners out of their property claim.

I disagree. If the property is private and being used by the church for church business, they can certainly apply all the double standards they wish. The only issue is if it is church owned public property. People who belong to a church and are on that churchs grounds should already know and have agreed to the rules of that church. Guests to that church should have at least enough respect to honor those rules while on church property. But the general public should not be restricted by church rules that they do not believe in or even have knowledge of. When a church takes ownership of a public area and then begins to enforce its rules on the public with no notice or warning, I would say it is an attempt to increase their power and control of humanity in general and should be squashed, like a bug.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

When I was about 8 or 9, sometime in the early 50’s, my dear departed Grandmother would sometimes take to me to a movie on Sat. I remember one such trip clearly - even now all those years later. We were waiting for the bus to take us home. The bus stop was a small park in which there was fountain. Like most such fountains it was a custom to throw coins in and make a wish.

I use to play around that fountain while we were waiting for the bus. On this particular Saturday as I was running around 2 guys in their 20’s came by. They stopped by the fountain and one of them threw a coin in. Then he leaned over and kissed the other guy. The embraced for a moment and the place irrupted.

“Stop that you sick queers. There are kids here,” one man called out.

“You **** cut it out. This a public place,” a women screamed.

They left and I went over to my grandmother to ask what happened. I was rather puzzled by the whole incident. She simply pulled her pocketbook closer and said, “God don’t love ugly.”

That was 60 years ago. Have we come very far?

 

[gnomon]

I disagree. If the property is private and being used by the church for church business, they can certainly apply all the double standards they wish. The only issue is if it is church owned public property. People who belong to a church and are on that churchs grounds should already know and have agreed to the rules of that church. Guests to that church should have at least enough respect to honor those rules while on church property. But the general public should not be restricted by church rules that they do not believe in or even have knowledge of. When a church takes ownership of a public area and then begins to enforce its rules on the public with no notice or warning, I would say it is an attempt to increase their power and control of humanity in general and should be squashed, like a bug.

They are not within their rights if the policy applies to all but they discriminate in application.

I don't know about the local laws but public access laws often inhibit religious institutions from practicing discriminatory policies. An example would be the Church that owned a wedding pavilion that was open to the public. Gay marriage in that state, I can't remember which one exactly, is also legal but the Church which provided the public pavilion denied them use. The law disagreed with them because the pavilion was available to be leased to the public thus they were required to follow all anti-discrimination laws.

In this case the situation may be dependent upon laws regarding public access and anti-discrimination laws but the Church cannot get away with claiming to adhere to a non-discriminatory policy but applying the policy in a discriminatory manner. If they can show that they also have treated heterosexuals under the same policy then they can indeed be in the right.