Preachers Arrested During Southern De...

Preachers Arrested During Southern Decadence New Orleans Gay Pride...

There are 41 comments on the Switched story from Sep 13, 2012, titled Preachers Arrested During Southern Decadence New Orleans Gay Pride.... In it, Switched reports that:

NEW ORLEANS Nine preachers and activists who were arrested on Sept. 1 after they allegedly yelled slurs during the Southern Decadence gay pride festival plan to sue the city of New Orleans over the constitutionality of part of its ordinance banning "aggressive solicitation" in the city's storied French Quarter.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Switched.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#21 Sep 14, 2012
buck wrote:
you missed my point too, lol
why have permit for something like that, if it gets that bad to require a permit for such an occassion. where is this freedom that we are fighting for in wars?
Parades Need permits because they interrupt the use of the street by everyone. The same with "block parties".
buck

AOL

#22 Sep 14, 2012
again, you are taking away freedom that is fought for in wars. How much of your freedom needs to be taken away until you don't have much of it anymore?
buck

AOL

#23 Sep 14, 2012
then again snyper, maybe you don't value your freedom much, do you?
you don't know what you got, til it's gone!
Omni Impotent

United States

#24 Sep 14, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Parades Need permits because they interrupt the use of the street by everyone. The same with "block parties".
Good example. It illustrates how rules and conventions are necessity for society to function. In this case, permission is required to use the street in a manner that is not consistent with it's original purpose.
If gays can understand that, why can they not understand the danger of redefining one of the very basics of society, such as marriage?
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#25 Sep 14, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I just have to watch my blood pressure.
That's sort of an ongoing thing for me, not in those words but in a general sense, and is not related to social issues but is a larger life thing, a thing about perspective.

Thank you.:D
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#26 Sep 14, 2012
Omni Impotent wrote:
<quoted text>
Good example. It illustrates how rules and conventions are necessity for society to function. In this case, permission is required to use the street in a manner that is not consistent with it's original purpose.
If gays can understand that, why can they not understand the danger of redefining one of the very basics of society, such as marriage?
If you can make the slightest grasp (mentally) of basic points, in other words, apprehend them, you can see why pro-gay comparisons to this type of rhetoric are extreme.

In Nazi Germany, Hitler wanted to *redefine humanity* to lessen the humanity of Jews. He had a whole country going.

This "redefine marriage" thing is a:

(stand back)

G I G A N T I C

smoke screen that serves as a lie and has nothing to do with anything. And it's worked. There are all you puppets,*it has WORKED because you think you're all *NOT* PUPPETS, you ACTUALLY BELIEVE you are *NOT* puppets*, and you're spouting what demonic monsters want you to spout, and you (some of you, at least)*literally fucking hate* P-E-O-P-L-E because of things they can't help.

There is one thing on which no discussion is worth it because *I will not see or hear you; you cannot penetrate, it's impossible*-- If the antigay are right about heaven and hell, I am MUCH, MUCH more relieved

because *they are all going to roast, rot and fellate satan in hell* for eternity for what they have done to families and small children, there is *NO WAY* they are not going straight to hell where they will spend eternity in misery.

None.

None whatsoever.

My faith in this is a *bedrock* you couldn't dislodge *no matter how you try*; I simply keep thinking, "They had better hope they're wrong. Oh dear god, they had better hope they're wrong."
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#27 Sep 14, 2012
There was no excuse in the world for any of this and any last one of you weak, weak mortals attempting to pretend otherwise have *nothing worth blinking at* on the logic which RELIGION ITSELF has proclaimed -- repeatedly -- through the unlikeliest mouthpiece of all ...

... the antigay.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#28 Sep 15, 2012
Omni Impotent wrote:
<quoted text>
Good example. It illustrates how rules and conventions are necessity for society to function. In this case, permission is required to use the street in a manner that is not consistent with it's original purpose.
If gays can understand that, why can they not understand the danger of redefining one of the very basics of society, such as marriage?
The temporary use of a street actually impedes something. Marriage Equality does not. It removed impediments.
Omni Impotent

United States

#29 Sep 15, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The temporary use of a street actually impedes something. Marriage Equality does not. It removed impediments.
Your first statement is correct. The second two are not.
Yes, the temporary repurposing of a city street to pedestrian traffic does impede vehicular traffic. The appropriate authority will consider whether the benefit to society outweighs the temporary inconvenience. If it does not, the application is denied. If the application is approved, at the appropriate time, barriers will be erected to prevent a dangerous mix of incompatible pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
In the case of gay marriage, society is trying to tell you that it is incompatible with the design of society, and that the benefit to so few does not outweigh the risk to so many.
Anonymous

Hanoi, Vietnam

#30 Sep 15, 2012

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#31 Sep 15, 2012
Omni Impotent wrote:
<quoted text>
Your first statement is correct. The second two are not.
Yes, the temporary repurposing of a city street to pedestrian traffic does impede vehicular traffic. The appropriate authority will consider whether the benefit to society outweighs the temporary inconvenience. If it does not, the application is denied. If the application is approved, at the appropriate time, barriers will be erected to prevent a dangerous mix of incompatible pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
In the case of gay marriage, society is trying to tell you that it is incompatible with the design of society, and that the benefit to so few does not outweigh the risk to so many.
Well, be prepared.....because Marriage rights will be returning to Gays and Lesbians very shortly in California:-)
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#32 Sep 15, 2012
Omni Impotent wrote:
<quoted text>
Your first statement is correct. The second two are not.
Yes, the temporary repurposing of a city street to pedestrian traffic does impede vehicular traffic. The appropriate authority will consider whether the benefit to society outweighs the temporary inconvenience. If it does not, the application is denied. If the application is approved, at the appropriate time, barriers will be erected to prevent a dangerous mix of incompatible pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
In the case of gay marriage, society is trying to tell you that it is incompatible with the design of society, and that the benefit to so few does not outweigh the risk to so many.
Are heteros attracted to gay people?
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#33 Sep 15, 2012
Omni Impotent wrote:
<quoted text>
Your first statement is correct. The second two are not.
Yes, the temporary repurposing of a city street to pedestrian traffic does impede vehicular traffic. The appropriate authority will consider whether the benefit to society outweighs the temporary inconvenience. If it does not, the application is denied. If the application is approved, at the appropriate time, barriers will be erected to prevent a dangerous mix of incompatible pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
In the case of gay marriage, society is trying to tell you that it is incompatible with the design of society, and that the benefit to so few does not outweigh the risk to so many.
Your very last statement, the last eight or nine words, is the grand lie. It's the *core of the lie* about gay marriage. It's the *only lie* upon which your "defense" rests.

There is no risk.

In fact, I think it's awesome when people like *YOU* talk about the risks, because then you expose your *thought process* and citizens, groups, legislatures and courts can have it opened *to the light of day* and expose what you're *REALLY* saying.

For one small example, some antigay arguments against marriage for persons of the same gender -- which makes *eminent* sense for them, irrefutable -- are actually insinuating that if kids see this, they will "turn gay." But the antigay WILL NEVER admit this; they won't actually SAY that. They *k-n-o-w* that if they do, scientific testimony will destroy their word.

Funny, courts themselves have in multiple instances found that benefits *to a gay couple* that *DO NOT* harm the rest of society (most childish, silliest, most babyish argument in the universe) are unexceptionable, as in the case of the New York woman who is forced for:

ZERO

reason

to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in estates taxes that *the stranger standing directly next to her in the street* doesn't have to pay.

Thanks for reading.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#34 Sep 15, 2012
The antigay, pure and simple and *without any moral compass in existence*, want to force that woman to pay needlessly, purposelessly, illegally, hatefully and in a way which is so prejudiced a child would see it. Any *average child* would ask why that woman has to pay something practically no one else does.
buck

AOL

#35 Sep 16, 2012
I heard this popular comment, worth repeating, if there isn't justice for one, there soon won't be justice for any!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#36 Sep 16, 2012
Omni Impotent wrote:
<quoted text>
Your first statement is correct. The second two are not.
Yes, the temporary repurposing of a city street to pedestrian traffic does impede vehicular traffic. The appropriate authority will consider whether the benefit to society outweighs the temporary inconvenience. If it does not, the application is denied. If the application is approved, at the appropriate time, barriers will be erected to prevent a dangerous mix of incompatible pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
In the case of gay marriage, society is trying to tell you that it is incompatible with the design of society, and that the benefit to so few does not outweigh the risk to so many.
A secular, rational and pragmatic authority will decide ... the COURT.
Jon

Garden Grove, CA

#37 Sep 21, 2012
The issue at hand is whether the ordinance is overreaching in its effort to ensure public safety. A reading of the ordinance along with familiarity of the French Quarter streets and traffic patterns will convince first amendment advocates and indeed most level headed citizens that the statute is overbroad leaning heavily toward protection and enhancement of commercial interests at the expense of individual constitutional freedoms. Provisions such as a the sundown curfew that limits access to the public to the small percentage of daytime visitors in a markedly night life venue as well as measurement restrictions from intersections, stores and liquor licensed establishments that taken together cleverly and effectively leave barely any legal space left to stand do not hold up to the narrow time, place and manner constrictions delineated by precedent Supreme Court rulings. In the case of New Orleans, ulterior motives appear to be at work. The disingenuousness of the ordinance's creators and enforcers becomes evident upon witnessing the continued "aggressive" harassment of police officers citing and arresting those who are peacefully pursuing their expressions completely within the harsh prohibitions of the new ordinance. Safety, it appears, is less the agenda than prejudicial purging of non $tourist friendly elements. Thus this dangerous ordinance must be amended at once, and having been so, enforced honorably.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#38 Sep 22, 2012
Jon wrote:
The issue at hand is whether the ordinance is overreaching in its effort to ensure public safety. A reading of the ordinance along with familiarity of the French Quarter streets and traffic patterns will convince first amendment advocates and indeed most level headed citizens that the statute is overbroad leaning heavily toward protection and enhancement of commercial interests at the expense of individual constitutional freedoms. Provisions such as a the sundown curfew that limits access to the public to the small percentage of daytime visitors in a markedly night life venue as well as measurement restrictions from intersections, stores and liquor licensed establishments that taken together cleverly and effectively leave barely any legal space left to stand do not hold up to the narrow time, place and manner constrictions delineated by precedent Supreme Court rulings. In the case of New Orleans, ulterior motives appear to be at work. The disingenuousness of the ordinance's creators and enforcers becomes evident upon witnessing the continued "aggressive" harassment of police officers citing and arresting those who are peacefully pursuing their expressions completely within the harsh prohibitions of the new ordinance. Safety, it appears, is less the agenda than prejudicial purging of non $tourist friendly elements. Thus this dangerous ordinance must be amended at once, and having been so, enforced honorably.
Lemme explain something.

Two people are doing drugs; the person popping ibuprofen does not get arrested, while the person snorting coke does. We differentiate, as a society, between them.

Two people engage in free speech; one threatens the government and the other explains her love of the show Arrested Development. One type of speech is not allowable; the other is.

We've *ALREADY* curtailed free speech as an absolute by providing a very small, limited number of exceptions to the idea and the rule that anyone can speak freely at any time. The exceptions are (mostly) sensible; the law is (in my view) never, ever 100.0% sensible, but that's because human nature informs it. Not to get sidetracked.

One *can* argue that antigay vitriol leads to *ENDLESS* violence and hatred against gay people, and one can argue it quite effectively indeed. As a matter of fact, we read *daily* about attacks in which ANTIGAY SLURS are used -- over, and over, and over, and over. What *you* are saying is that a "RELIGIOUS CONTEXT" informs this free speech.

I am no longer buying that. Not at all. I stopped buying that about a year ago.

This "religious freedom" does not extend to the right to murder your kid by refusing medical treatment; people are routinely prosecuted for endangering their kids because their "religious beliefs" were the basis for refusing medical treatment. Free speech is a beautiful, wonderful and valuable thing. However, a *BACKLASH* against gay rights in this country has produced a minority so *savagely virulent and ferally hateful* that they routinely hint at *DIRECT VIOLENCE* against gay people, and make it clear they wouldn't care if all gay people were executed by firing squads.

I see zero reason that "religion" should allow these preachers to speak hatefully *IF* that is what they are doing. That is an excuse whose time has come and it is no longer valid. You can hate gay people, believe every horrible thing in the world you want about them, and refuse to touch them with a ten-foot pole,

but this need of the "religious" to *BROADCAST* their hatred and *INCITE OTHERS TO HATE*

must

stop

now.

Thanks for reading.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#39 Sep 22, 2012
In response to "Jon," directly above:

Lemme explain something.

Two people are doing drugs; the person popping ibuprofen does not get arrested, while the person snorting coke does. We differentiate, as a society, between them.

Two people engage in free speech; one threatens the government and the other explains her love of the show Arrested Development. One type of speech is not allowable; the other is.

We've *ALREADY* curtailed free speech as an absolute by providing a very small, limited number of exceptions to the idea and the rule that anyone can speak freely at any time. The exceptions are (mostly) sensible; the law is (in my view) never, ever 100.0% sensible, but that's because human nature informs it. Not to get sidetracked.

One *can* argue that antigay vitriol leads to *ENDLESS* violence and hatred against gay people, and one can argue it quite effectively indeed. As a matter of fact, we read *daily* about attacks in which ANTIGAY SLURS are used -- over, and over, and over, and over. What *you* are saying is that a "RELIGIOUS CONTEXT" informs this free speech.

I am no longer buying that. Not at all. I stopped buying that about a year ago.

This "religious freedom" does not extend to the right to murder your kid by refusing medical treatment; people are routinely prosecuted for endangering their kids because their "religious beliefs" were the basis for refusing medical treatment. Free speech is a beautiful, wonderful and valuable thing. However, a *BACKLASH* against gay rights in this country has produced a minority so *savagely virulent and ferally hateful* that they routinely hint at *DIRECT VIOLENCE* against gay people, and make it clear they wouldn't care if all gay people were executed by firing squads.

I see zero reason that "religion" should allow these preachers to speak hatefully *IF* that is what they are doing. That is an excuse whose time has come and it is no longer valid. You can hate gay people, believe every horrible thing in the world you want about them, and refuse to touch them with a ten-foot pole,

but this need of the "religious" to *BROADCAST* their hatred and *INCITE OTHERS TO HATE*

must

stop

now.

Thanks for reading.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#40 Sep 22, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Lemme explain something.
Two people are doing drugs; the person popping ibuprofen does not get arrested, while the person snorting coke does. We differentiate, as a society, between them.
Two people engage in free speech; one threatens the government and the other explains her love of the show Arrested Development. One type of speech is not allowable; the other is.
We've *ALREADY* curtailed free speech as an absolute by providing a very small, limited number of exceptions to the idea and the rule that anyone can speak freely at any time. The exceptions are (mostly) sensible; the law is (in my view) never, ever 100.0% sensible, but that's because human nature informs it. Not to get sidetracked.
One *can* argue that antigay vitriol leads to *ENDLESS* violence and hatred against gay people, and one can argue it quite effectively indeed. As a matter of fact, we read *daily* about attacks in which ANTIGAY SLURS are used -- over, and over, and over, and over. What *you* are saying is that a "RELIGIOUS CONTEXT" informs this free speech.
I am no longer buying that. Not at all. I stopped buying that about a year ago.
This "religious freedom" does not extend to the right to murder your kid by refusing medical treatment; people are routinely prosecuted for endangering their kids because their "religious beliefs" were the basis for refusing medical treatment. Free speech is a beautiful, wonderful and valuable thing. However, a *BACKLASH* against gay rights in this country has produced a minority so *savagely virulent and ferally hateful* that they routinely hint at *DIRECT VIOLENCE* against gay people, and make it clear they wouldn't care if all gay people were executed by firing squads.
I see zero reason that "religion" should allow these preachers to speak hatefully *IF* that is what they are doing. That is an excuse whose time has come and it is no longer valid. You can hate gay people, believe every horrible thing in the world you want about them, and refuse to touch them with a ten-foot pole,
but this need of the "religious" to *BROADCAST* their hatred and *INCITE OTHERS TO HATE*
must
stop
now.
Thanks for reading.
Your clarity of thought is refreshing.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

RNS Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Methodists nominate 3 openly gay candidates for... Jun 29 Robin Hood 1
News Methodist supporters of Israel divestment regro... May '16 Three Days 1
News German politicians suggest taxing Muslims to fi... May '16 The Prophet Smells 8
News Why Trump's rise does not spell the end for the... May '16 Observation 1
News Muslim theology faculties develop an - Islam fo... Apr '16 Vote UKIP 2
News Yes, Catholics may vote for Bernie Sanders Apr '16 Believer 2
News Long road for Reza Aslan's 'Of Kings and Prophe... Mar '16 Mawar 1
More from around the web