If you see any queers kissing, just call the cops

[Green Gaia]

Gay couple cuffed, cited after kiss near LDS temple

So the next time someone comes on my property to evangelize to me, I should handcuff them and humiliate them?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

So the next time someone comes on my property to evangelize to me, I should handcuff them and humiliate them?

Ooooo, can I help?

Although I am fond of the JWs who stop by to talk with me on occasion. They're very nice and we have some interesting conversations. I do wonder if I'm a bit of a corrupting influence on them. One can only hope.

 

[monta]

There should be a hotline for emergencies !​

 

[Smoke]

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).

Everyone is a potential threat. The police do not have the right to handcuff anyone they wish. And you're overlooking the fact that it was not the police who handcuffed them.

 

[blackout]

So the next time someone comes on my property to evangelize to me, I should handcuff them and humiliate them?

Exactly. And sometimes my kids are home alone.
It makes it very awkward for them.
Then they are forced to lie.
(which I know said evangelizers would not approve of)

Strangers should not be coming to my door.
Kissing or not.
For the sanctity of my home, and the general safety of my kids.

 

[blackout]

OTOH I'm really not a fan of public display's of affection in general.
At least not really slobbery ones.

My usual response? Get a room.
Then if you want people to watch...
hand out invites,
or get out the cam corder. :flirt:

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

I really doubt they would have even noticed a hetero couple. A kiss on the check is far from a slobery make out session.

 

[DallasApple]

So the next time someone comes on my property to evangelize to me, I should handcuff them and humiliate them?

Depends on the laws in your state..You put a NO solicating sign on your door and if they approach anyway you have the right to call the police and have their permits taken away.

YOu have to have a permit to solicit private property..And the agreement of the private owners.

And in "public" forget about about it..We have strict "pandering" laws here.NO PANDERING period.In public..Not even the shriners standing on the corners asking for money for childrens burn units is allowed.

Love

Dallas

 

[blackout]

I really doubt they would have even noticed a hetero couple. A kiss on the check is far from a slobery make out session.

Really. That's just total silliness.

 

[monta]

Depends on the laws in your state..You put a NO solicating sign on your door and if they approach anyway you have the right to call the police and have their permits taken away.

YOu have to have a permit to solicit private property..And the agreement of the private owners.

Yeah I spent a good 40 minutes reading through the californian penal code before I remembered it was Utah, their legislation is a bit more vague something about likely to cause offense or something like that. BTW the californian law dealing with 'THE CRIME AGAINST NATURE' is hillarious and detailed, you would want to be a pretty heavy sleeper .

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Thank goodness some fine folks are busy making society safe for me by crushing these outrageous displays of affection.

I know whenever I see two people kiss, the resulting psychological shock makes me agoraphobic for weeks in fear that I'll see it again. I once saw a guy pat another guy on the butt once and I was hospitalized for a month. God forbid we see physical contact in public!

I'm also grateful that I can go out and not have to witness the horror of physical affection.

 

[monta]

I know whenever I see two people kiss, the resulting psychological shock makes me agoraphobic for weeks in fear that I'll see it again. I once saw a guy pat another guy on the butt once and I was hospitalized for a month. God forbid we see physical contact in public!

I'm also grateful that I can go out and not have to witness the horror of physical affection.

Add torrential unrelenting rain and the same people who are uncomfortable acknowleging each others existence in the daytime getting drunk and having sex in doorways at night, and you have Ireland woohoo Erin go bragh.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I once saw a guy pat another guy on the butt once and I was hospitalized for a month.

Stop watching sports or you're really going to be driven over the edge.

 

[3.14]

asked the pair to leave, saying that public displays of affection are not allowed on the church property, They protested,

The guards put Jones on the ground and handcuffed him,
The injuries did not require medical treatment,

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

during the approximately five-minute exchange.

I unleashed a flurry of profanities," he said.

​

​

this is basicly the entire story, no matter what sex they had the gaurds were in there right

 

[TheKnight]

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.

No one said anything about the rule being about public displays of affection. Homosexual behavior is wrong in the LDS Church and therefore it all by itself is an act that could warrant expulsion from LDS property.

Either way, whether discriminatory or not, private property owners have the right to ask anyone to leave the property they own and pay for, regardless of the reason of the level of enforcement of that reason.

That does not make it "right" however.

Right and wrong are subjective. As a result of that, when there are issues of morality when one party and another party disagree on morality, both must do well to remember that regardless of their disagreements they are both bound by the law.

Everyone is a potential threat. The police do not have the right to handcuff anyone they wish. And you're overlooking the fact that it was not the police who handcuffed them.

Everyone is a potential threat. Being handcuffed is something people don't like, however security and police can handcuff anyone they feel needs to be handcuffed (whether or not they have committed a crime--At least this is the case in California). Being handcuffed does not mean you're being arrested.

 

[Smoke]

No one said anything about the rule being about public displays of affection.

If you don't want to read the articles I linked to, you could at least read the OP.

Everyone is a potential threat. Being handcuffed is something people don't like, however security and police can handcuff anyone they feel needs to be handcuffed (whether or not they have committed a crime--At least this is the case in California). Being handcuffed does not mean you're being arrested.

They can if they can get away with it, but they don't have the right to do it, and free citizens should never allow them to get away with it.

A friend of John's was accosted by a security guard who thought he had the right to detain and physically restrain her. She won a hefty judgment against his employer.

 

[TheKnight]

If you don't want to read the articles I linked to, you could at least read the OP.

I read the article. "The church contends the couple was "asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior just as any other couple would have been."

Got see words for what they say, not what you want them to say. Inappropriate behavior according to the LDS church, is homosexual behavior. Two straight opposite-sex people kissing probably wouldn't constitute inappropriate to them. How keen that spokesperson was, using the word inappropriate (something completely and totally dependent on the values of the person using the word).

 

[gnomon]

Either way, whether discriminatory or not, private property owners have the right to ask anyone to leave the property they own and pay for, regardless of the reason of the level of enforcement of that reason.

Not according to law in many states.

Namely anti-discrimination laws and public access laws.

Reports on this incident state that an LDS representative says the couple were not singled out because of their sexuality. So the argument about LDS views on homosexuality are not relative in this incident. They cannot use that as an excuse if they deny it for their reason to tell them that they, as articles also state, asked them to leave merely for public display of affection.

What we can conclude is that they are claiming to enforce a general policy of "offensive, indecent, obscene, lewd or disorderly speech, dress or conduct,". In general this is fine. The landlord of the property where I work has a no solicitation policy and the only way we can justify such use is to enforce it in all instances except where the policy allows a business on that property to engage in such a practice as it pertains to that business. Which is practically never.

No where have I stated that the LDS Church has no right to establish rules regarding their private property. I'm talking about the role of laws regarding public access in which property owned by a private entity, be it a business or a religious institution, that is available for public access has to abide by particular laws usually in regards to anti-discrimination.

Whether or not this incident shows that the Church is being discriminatory in this case depends upon two things. Consistent application of their policy which can be difficult to show and whatever the state and local laws are regarding public access and anti-discrimination.

It's one thing to just say that private property and its use is solely up to the owners discretion. However, when it comes to actual practice, in my experience being a manager and having to toss people out of the store I work at, you have to be very careful when such a decision is made. Namely to avoid a lawsuit and bad public relations. While since this incident involves a religious organization rather than a for profit business (no jokes, please) the precedent is set that when claiming that private property is open to the public similar laws can apply and civil suits can come from anywhere.

Since I do not know the laws in Utah or Salt Lake City related to this incident it would be dishonest of me to assert what I said in my first post.

 

[Smoke]

I read the article.

Not very well, apparently.

Got see words for what they say, not what you want them to say.

Indeed.

Several security guards then arrived and asked the pair to leave, saying that public displays of affection are not allowed on the church property

 

[TheKnight]

Not according to law in many states.

Namely anti-discrimination laws and public access laws.

Reports on this incident state that an LDS representative says the couple were not singled out because of their sexuality. So the argument about LDS views on homosexuality are not relative in this incident. They cannot use that as an excuse if they deny it for their reason to tell them that they, as articles also state, asked them to leave merely for public display of affection.

What we can conclude is that they are claiming to enforce a general policy of "offensive, indecent, obscene, lewd or disorderly speech, dress or conduct,". In general this is fine. The landlord of the property where I work has a no solicitation policy and the only way we can justify such use is to enforce it in all instances except where the policy allows a business on that property to engage in such a practice as it pertains to that business. Which is practically never.

No where have I stated that the LDS Church has no right to establish rules regarding their private property. I'm talking about the role of laws regarding public access in which property owned by a private entity, be it a business or a religious institution, that is available for public access has to abide by particular laws usually in regards to anti-discrimination.

Whether or not this incident shows that the Church is being discriminatory in this case depends upon two things. Consistent application of their policy which can be difficult to show and whatever the state and local laws are regarding public access and anti-discrimination.

It's one thing to just say that private property and its use is solely up to the owners discretion. However, when it comes to actual practice, in my experience being a manager and having to toss people out of the store I work at, you have to be very careful when such a decision is made. Namely to avoid a lawsuit and bad public relations. While since this incident involves a religious organization rather than a for profit business (no jokes, please) the precedent is set that when claiming that private property is open to the public similar laws can apply and civil suits can come from anywhere.

Since I do not know the laws in Utah or Salt Lake City related to this incident it would be dishonest of me to assert what I said in my first post.

I agree. I don't know the laws there either. And I do realize (I also have to ask people to leave places due to the nature of my work) that asking people to leave can be sticky.

In California, if a person with private property asks someone (who violates the rules of that property) to leave, they must leave. Not only do they have to leave, but whether or not the private property owner always enforces that rule isn't relavant.

If a private property owner has a letter of agency, the person doesn't have to violate any of the property's rules to be asked to leave. The property owner can have them removed (and possibly arrested for trespassing) simply because they don't want them there.