Quantcast

Preaching at Gay Pride Parade. Was it Wrong?

Freshtildeath 2012/07/03 22:43:01
You!
Add Photos & Videos
A Christian street preacher is interrupted gay supporters during the Pride 2012 celebration. Was the Christian wrong or were the pride supporters overreacting?



See
Part 2: http://freshtildeathtv.com/archives/christian-man-vs-gays-at-...


Read More: http://freshtildeathtv.com/archives/christian-man-...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • U-Dog 2012/07/03 23:34:50
    Undecided
    U-Dog
    +13
    The Christians are within their individual rights to vocally disagree and to disrupt the Gays planned celebratory parade with their moral views. However, it is also very disrespectful and rude from a civil standpoint, and if Christian's are going to act pushy and rude about voicing their own views, they really shouldn't scream too loudly or be to shocked when gays strike back by do something equally rude and disruptive such as flash mobbing their own PUBLIC religious services, etc, etc.

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander ...just Saying.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • U-Dog sjalan 2012/07/06 06:49:49
    U-Dog
    +1
    "Indeed the 1st Amendment has been interperted by SCOTUS quite specifically where a person may indeed have the freedom of speech, a person does NOT have the right to disrupt or harass people with that speech."

    Back it up with a valid link to the law or stop this wheel spinning nonsense. I already showed you what SCOTUS ruled but I guess you must mean the magical SCOTUS in never never land.
  • sjalan U-Dog 2012/07/06 16:16:48
    sjalan
    Well for one there is the "Fighting Words Doctrine" established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which is most applicable to the discussion in context, Where in, the Court stated the following

    “English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight.” The court determined that the New Hampshire statute in question “did no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker — including ‘classical fighting words,’ words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.” Jurisdictions may write statutes to punish verbal acts if the statutes are “carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression.”

    The specifics "words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker"

    The classic forms of "fighting words" would be personal or infered insults to ones color, nationality, religious or ethnic background. There are a number of such words that are single words such as the "N" word or the "H" word (the eq...





    Well for one there is the "Fighting Words Doctrine" established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which is most applicable to the discussion in context, Where in, the Court stated the following

    “English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight.” The court determined that the New Hampshire statute in question “did no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker — including ‘classical fighting words,’ words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.” Jurisdictions may write statutes to punish verbal acts if the statutes are “carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression.”

    The specifics "words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker"

    The classic forms of "fighting words" would be personal or infered insults to ones color, nationality, religious or ethnic background. There are a number of such words that are single words such as the "N" word or the "H" word (the equivent towards a white person). Same for the "C" (aimed a an oriental person) or "S" word (when aimed at a person of Italian heritage) the list goes on and on.

    Under the principle of this case, the SCOTUS on many occations has ruled against or refused to take up a case decided against people who use insulting and degrading of the individuals in public speach when the combination of words create an intended effect to demean or incite response from those to whom the words are aimed. This is associated the case Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). Cohen was arrested and convicted for disturbing the peace after wearing a jacket bearing the words "F--- the Draft." The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, redefining fighting words as only those "personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reactions."

    The actions of "preacher guy" indeed fit the responsible decision of SCOTUS in lite of Cohen v California where in the use of "personally abusive epithets" would be correctly applied against "preacher guy" as his statements of preaching were intended to "inherently likely to provoke violent reactions" from those whom the "preacher guy" aimed his comments.

    I suggest YOU do a little research before you start mouthing off as to the rulings of the SCOTUS on the Freedoms we have and the limitations of those Freedoms in a civilized society.
    (more)
  • U-Dog sjalan 2012/07/06 16:53:53
    U-Dog
    +1
    Dream on, I doubt there is a DA in the country that would waste the tax payers money taking something as petty as this to trial. This person was inciting violence about as much as some little old lady telling a bunch of kids to get off her grass. The gays could have simply ignored this nut case and acted like adults in this matter too but I suppose asking them to be the grown up sane civil ones would be asking just way too much.

    This is obviously going no where and you are welcome to your opinion and the last word in the matter. I will agree to disagree and leave it at that.
  • sjalan U-Dog 2012/07/06 23:04:47
    sjalan
    You didn't read the total decision by SCOTUS. I did. What their statement boils down to is that to "inherently likely to provoke violent reactions" is what constitutues harrassment, which by the way falls under every single civil law code as "disturbing the peace".

    As your you dismissal, I could care less. I know what the law and the court rulings are and this is EXACTLY why SCOTUS ruled as they did.

    Have a nice day.
  • sjalan 2012/07/07 03:40:01 (edited)
    +2
    I've seen ALL of the video. I also know the Preacher. He had a booth set up there (as he does almost EVERYDAY) and he was NOT harassing OR insulting ANYONE. You sir are an unmitigated LIAR!

    https://vimeo.com/45105005
  • RastaFan U-Dog 2012/07/05 22:52:14 (edited)
    RastaFan
    +2
    You shouldn't project this individual's actions onto the Christian community as a whole. It distorts the truth. Your stated logic condones reaction by any Gay group toward ANY church based on this man's activity.

    Besides ... everyone knows Gays set the blue-ribbon standard for rude, ignorant, pushy behavior.
  • U-Dog RastaFan 2012/07/06 00:28:49
    U-Dog
    +2
    Most Christians I know are very private civil people and I certainly tried to phrase my statement in a way that would indicate that. I most certainly was not implying that all Christians were rude or pushy bible thumper types and I would certainly agree that there are plenty of childish, irrational, in your face, types among the gay community too-- which is probably the biggest reason that they cannot gain more support from civil mainstream folks.
  • RastaFan U-Dog 2012/07/06 15:26:47
    RastaFan
    +2
    Yeah, that gets to be a problem.

    What can also plainly be seen is that the vast maority of people in the background were walking by peaceably and NOT behaving like the crazy, screaming 'slut' girl, so the behavior displayed here is also not indicative of the whole movement.
  • Howler 2012/07/03 23:33:12
    Pride Supporters were wrong
    Howler
    +5
    ...And so was the police.

    The street preacher was doing nothing wrong morally, nor did it appear that he was breaking any law.
  • Herb 2012/07/03 23:29:16
    Pride Supporters were wrong
    Herb
    +6
    shes has right to free speech as they do.
  • peaches Herb 2012/07/03 23:47:41
    peaches
    But then how does that make the pride supporters wrong if she can preach her beliefs? o.o
  • Herb peaches 2012/07/03 23:54:26 (edited)
    Herb
    to go overboard about her they have a right just like he does.
  • GuyRobD... Herb 2012/07/04 00:23:55
    GuyRobDeWhitney
    +1
    Did you even watch the video? The preacher is MALE!
  • Herb GuyRobD... 2012/07/04 03:08:11
    Herb
    yeah typo sorry.
  • MarinerFH 2012/07/03 23:15:20
  • GuyRobD... MarinerFH 2012/07/04 00:24:48
    GuyRobDeWhitney
    +3
    Hunh? The preacher was the MAN with the beard in the upper left of the frame.
  • MarinerFH GuyRobD... 2012/07/04 01:05:06
  • GuyRobD... MarinerFH 2012/07/04 05:10:17
    GuyRobDeWhitney
    +2
    Given that Jesus himself supposedly instructed his followers to preach the gospel what do you base that on?
  • gvc MarinerFH 2012/07/04 01:05:38
    gvc
    +1
    From the mouth of someone who could not be bothered to watch the video. Hmmmm guess you bring discredit to yourself.
  • MarinerFH gvc 2012/07/04 01:53:56
  • gvc MarinerFH 2012/07/04 01:57:50
    gvc
    +2
    Sure ya did. Cause it was easy to mistake that black man for a woman right.

    I don't like the message because it is a lie. And you don't speak for God.
  • MarinerFH gvc 2012/07/04 02:03:24
  • gvc MarinerFH 2012/07/04 02:06:12 (edited)
    gvc
    +1
    Spoken by the women who condemned the preacher, judged him to be a non believer and said he was not representative of Christ. All without the benefit of watching the video. Wow!

    I think you need to pull the moat out of your own eye.
  • MarinerFH gvc 2012/07/04 02:25:11
  • gvc MarinerFH 2012/07/04 02:32:24
    gvc
    +1
    Oh I see, you have never actually read the bible.
    "Pull the moat out of your own eye"
    Those were Jesus' words....funny, you don't know his words when you see or hear them.

    Instead of condemning someone you know nothing about, you may need to make sure YOU are the one who knows what it is to be Christian.
  • Alvin gvc 2012/07/04 02:50:53
    Alvin
    Mote, Mote. meaning a piece of dirt or dust, Moat is a ditch going around a castle.
  • gvc Alvin 2012/07/04 02:58:35
    gvc
    +1
    Thank you for correcting my spelling. Is that all you have to offer?
  • GuyRobD... gvc 2012/07/04 05:31:33
    GuyRobDeWhitney
    +2
    That was not a spelling error so much as incorrect word usage; such as using to instead of too, or mixing up their, they're and there, which I am sure has never happened to you.
  • gvc GuyRobD... 2012/07/04 05:44:49
    gvc
    Uh look dude, I spelled the word wrong. Rather you believe it or not is really irrelevant.
  • GuyRobD... gvc 2012/07/04 05:51:53
    GuyRobDeWhitney
    +2
    Um, that would be "whether you believe it..." Look I am not being a nitpicker, there IS a reason for having a lot of words that mean only slightly different things as well as reasons why we need common usage rules... How do you expect to communicate if you select your words by a "close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades" rule?
  • gvc GuyRobD... 2012/07/04 06:01:47
    gvc
    +1
    Do you understand what I am saying? If you do, you are being a nit picker.
    And nobody likes a nit picker!!!
  • GuyRobD... gvc 2012/07/04 05:29:32
    GuyRobDeWhitney
    +2
    Oh dear, how do I say this... A moat is a ditch around a castle that can be filled with water while a mote is a tiny speck of dust.
  • gvc GuyRobD... 2012/07/04 05:34:32
    gvc
    +1
    Thank you for the correction. I assume you know what I meant, as did the woman I was responding to.
    Some people just feel compelled to nit pick I guess.
  • GuyRobD... gvc 2012/07/04 05:40:36
    GuyRobDeWhitney
    +2
    I think rather, many folks understand that being sloppy and careless with grammar and word usage quite simply makes communication harder; get over being right and work on figuring out WHAT is right my dear and you will go far.
  • gvc GuyRobD... 2012/07/04 05:45:57
    gvc
    Thank you spelling Nazi.
    Since you clearly have nothing of value to add to this conversation maybe you should move along.
  • Alvin gvc 2012/07/04 02:49:42
    Alvin
    And you DO?
  • gvc Alvin 2012/07/04 02:58:15
    gvc
    Sure do!
  • GuyRobD... gvc 2012/07/04 05:26:32 (edited)
    GuyRobDeWhitney
    +2
    Be prepared to eat crow! My wife tracked down more of the video; we now know what set off the crowd, they just need to hate Christians... Someone, anyone point out how anything this man was preaching was in ANY way hateful toward Gays or anyone else?
    The only hate I see is coming from pride supporters who seem to have unresolved "issues" with things having nothing to do with the preacher's actual message.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  • gvc GuyRobD... 2012/07/04 05:29:46
    gvc
    +1
    You want me to eat crow?
    Ummm I am on record saying this man did nothing wrong.
    Maybe you have me confused with someone else???
  • GuyRobD... gvc 2012/07/04 05:45:02
    GuyRobDeWhitney
    +2
    Mea Culpa, I am getting cross-eyed from all the self-righteous pronouncements in this multi-thread. My sincere apologies.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/09/20 04:00:25

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals