Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Are D.C. Police Doing Enforcing Shariah Law?
Pajamas Media ^ | September 16, 2010 | Ronald Rotunda

Posted on 09/16/2010 1:48:29 AM PDT by Rashputin

What Are D.C. Police Doing Enforcing Shariah Law?

Police officers, at the direction of an imam, remove six Muslim women from the Islamic Center. Their crime? Worshiping peacefully.

The Islamic Center, housed in a magnificent building in Washington, D.C., has been around for over a half-century, but it is seldom in the news. Unless you drive by (on Embassy Row) you would not know that it there. Because it is supposed to be a peaceful place of worship, we would not expect local police to enter.

Yet last March they did. Three D.C. Metropolitan police officers entered the center, at the direction of an imam, and removed six Muslim women. Their crime? They were worshiping peacefully in the main prayer hall after the imam announced that women were forbidden to enter that area.

What happened in Washington, D.C., should remind us of the peaceful sit-ins of the 1960s. The courts found that the police action removing people from private businesses violated the Equal Protection Clause.

In a series of cases the lower federal courts and the Supreme Court reversed convictions of black and white civil protestors who were convicted under state criminal trespass or disturbing the peace laws when they sat in the “white-only” section of various lunch counters and restaurants and refused to move after having been ordered to do so by the agent of the establishment.

Neither state nor federal laws at the time required the restaurants to serve blacks, but the courts found “state action” that violated Equal Protection. In Garner v. Louisiana (1961), for example, the Supreme Court reversed the convictions (under a state disturbing the peace statute) of those who had engaged in a sit-in, because the record was “totally devoid of evidentiary support” that petitioners caused any disturbance of the peace. They sat there quietly.

Peterson v. Greenville (1963) reversed the trespass conviction of blacks who had engaged in a lunch counter sit-in. The store manager asked the blacks to leave because integrated service was “contrary to local customs” and a local ordinance. The Supreme Court held that “these convictions cannot stand,” whether or not a local ordinance supported the store manager. In Lombard v. Louisiana (1963), decided the same day, the Court reversed the trespass convictions of three blacks and one white who had sat in a privately owned restaurant that served only whites. The case involved no statutes or ordinances, but the police did say that “no additional sit-in demonstrations … will be permitted.” Justice Douglas, concurring, argued that there was state action when the state judiciary “put criminal sanctions behind racial discrimination in public places.”

There are precious little differences between the sit-in cases of the 1960s and the Muslim sit-in cases. We knew, in the 1960s, that the Equal Protection Clause forbids discrimination based on color. We know now that the Equal Protection Clause forbids discrimination based on gender. We know that the lunch counters were open to anyone who wanted to eat, except blacks, or blacks had to sit at a special section. We know that the mosque is open to anyone who wants to worship God, except that women must sit at special places — sort of like “back of the bus.”

And we know that the discrimination based on race or sex could not exist without the help of the local police. The question is why the D.C. police — who have real crime to worry about – are spending their time and taxpayer dollars to enforce sharia law.

Our First Amendment protects the right of people to believe whatever they want to believe. But there are limits to how they can act on their beliefs. For example, a religion may believe that racial segregation is God’s way. They can believe that, but the state cannot aid that belief by, for example, giving federally subsidized loans to colleges that discriminate on the basis of race. The people of Washington, D.C., should not be enforcing shariah law.

Ronald Rotunda is the Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at the Chapman University School of Law.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: creepingsharia; creepingshariah; crushislam; democrats; dhimmicrats; groundzeromosque; illegal; islam; islamicfascism; military; muslims; obama; palin; sharia; shariah; shariahlaw; sharialaw; trespassing; unconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last
I'd call this a clear cut case of deprivation of civil rights under color of law, something that should deprive those involved of their jobs and freedom for a while. From the lowest beat cop to the top brass, everyone is told what the limits are and even if they are simply trying to defuse a situation they are still held accountable for their actions. This is exactly, precisely, identically, the same thing as enforcing Jim Crow laws and if the democrat fascist thugs think it will go unnoticed that they're up to their old tricks they've got another thing coming.
1 posted on 09/16/2010 1:48:32 AM PDT by Rashputin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
But there are limits to how they can act on their beliefs. For example, a religion may believe that racial segregation is God’s way.

So if a Segregationist Church were to hold it's ceremonies in it's own building and members of another race show up and, through thier presence alone, disturb the otherwise peaceful congregation - the church has no recourse but accept?

I think not.

This is exactly, precisely, identically, the same thing as enforcing Jim Crow laws

Denying a group access to facilities / businesses that serve the general public (bars, restaraunts, buses etc ...) can not be justified as no persons personal beliefs / liberties are infinged upon by allowing blacks, hispanics, etc ... access. That has nothing at all to do with forcing a religious group to accept persons it deems uncapable of worship access to it's sanctums.

2 posted on 09/16/2010 2:03:29 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
Reread the last paragraph. The Mosque should have had security of their own to enforce their rules and then asked the police to intervene only if there was a scent outside of the Mosque. The police have no role in enforcing private membership rules and/or beliefs.

Regards

3 posted on 09/16/2010 2:10:23 AM PDT by Rashputin (Obama is already insane and sequestered on golf courses or vacations so you won't know it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
Reread the last paragraph. The Mosque should have had security of their own to enforce their rules and then asked the police to intervene only if there was a scent outside of the Mosque. The police have no role in enforcing private membership rules and/or beliefs.

I do not know what odors outside of the mosque have to do with anything, but it appears you are saying we cannot call the police to remove trespassers unless we have private security?

4 posted on 09/16/2010 2:18:07 AM PDT by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

They were apparently breaking the law.


5 posted on 09/16/2010 2:18:41 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
"What Are D.C. Police Doing Enforcing Shariah Law?"

Photobucket

6 posted on 09/16/2010 2:27:20 AM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

Are these women still alive?


7 posted on 09/16/2010 2:31:53 AM PDT by MagnoliaB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

“The police have no role in enforcing private membership rules and/or beliefs.”

Keep in mind, you are reading a news story, which could be
completely false to only part true. I doubt that you or anyone else knows all the facts.
That being said, let me draw an analogy.
If I own a private club, for members only, and some non members enter, I can ask them to leave, and if they refuse, I call the police.
The mosque is probably a private, not public, operation.
Who says that the mosque, does, or should have a private security force?


8 posted on 09/16/2010 2:32:58 AM PDT by AlexW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

Islam a crime against humanity!


9 posted on 09/16/2010 2:44:31 AM PDT by ntmxx (I am not so sure about this misdirection!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MagnoliaB

Fortunately the police removed them before they could be killed.


10 posted on 09/16/2010 3:00:41 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

I clicked on the “American Thinker” link in the title, and it came up “Pajamas Media”.

Something stinks about this.........


11 posted on 09/16/2010 3:09:47 AM PDT by fivecatsandadog (You better HOPE you end up with a little CHANGE in your pocket after he's finished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fivecatsandadog

and searched American Thinker for the article ......

no match.


12 posted on 09/16/2010 3:15:06 AM PDT by fivecatsandadog (You better HOPE you end up with a little CHANGE in your pocket after he's finished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ntmxx

Dogs are clean and nice.

Bacon is good.

Women should not be beaten.

Animals are not for sex.

Stones are not for throwing at people or praying at.

:)If you dissagree with someone dont cut off their head.


13 posted on 09/16/2010 3:25:40 AM PDT by Therapsid (Communism has killed 50-60 Million people in only 50 yrs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AlexW

That wasn’t the case. The women were in a section of the mosque that had been designated men only. It was not a case of trespass. Same as the blacks at the lunch counter, the restaurant was not “members only”, the counter was whites only.
However, whether Islam specifically or just Islamic men, they have a variety of sex-segregation rules.


14 posted on 09/16/2010 3:25:49 AM PDT by visualops (Proud Air Force Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

It’s not a church, it’s a club.

And if the people in there are discussing public disturbances and attacks on Americans, it’s not a club, it’s a criminal syndicate.


15 posted on 09/16/2010 3:28:10 AM PDT by djf (It is ISLAM or "We, the People..." Take your pick. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: visualops

“It was not a case of trespass.”

No? Is the mosque not private property?
You are falling into the mistake of assuming that all churches/mosques are public property. They are not !

As for the lunch counter, it was a PUBLIC restaurant, not a private club. There is a distinction.
Even if I go into a public restaurant, I can not demand to be seated wherever I like.
As for sex segregation, are not all restrooms, public or private, sexually segregated?
By your logic, I should be able to go into any restroom,
male or female, if it is “public”.

You are comparing apples to oranges.


16 posted on 09/16/2010 3:51:03 AM PDT by AlexW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

I don’t see what the issue is. Do we not have a right to have police remove trespassers from private property?


17 posted on 09/16/2010 3:51:18 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spectre; truthkeeper; processing please hold; antceecee; navymom1; jaredt112; Edgerunner; ...

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
This is a ping list promoting Immigration Enforcement and Congressional Reform.
If you wish to be added or removed from this ping list, please contact me.

Poll: Voters Disapprove of How Obama Is Handling Illegal Immigration

Sharron Angle: Harry Reid is "the Best Friend an Illegal Alien Ever Had" [New Ad]

Shocker! After Winning Primary McRINO Suddenly Open-Minded to Back Door Amnesty Plan…

Sheriff to call out posse to help with illegal immigration

The enlightened Catholic stance on immigration

Even If You Favor Amnesty For Some Illegal Teens, This DREAM Act Must Be Stopped

McCain Considering Support for the Democrats' DREAM Act

Republicans Call Reid's Immigration Proposal Political Ploy

Obama: I'm not walking away from immigration reform

Sheriff Arpaio in planning stages for armed volunteer posse Illegal Immigration Enforcement Unit

Menendez plans to introduce immigration legislation

Dems Hold Military Hostage Over Amnesty

California rewards child molester

No Tea Party: Palin’s Pro-Illegal Alien Candidate Wins New Hampshire (Schlussel Slams Palin)

18 posted on 09/16/2010 4:02:32 AM PDT by bcsco (Karl Rove, from Magnificent Bastard to Malignant Bastard in one day...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf

I prefer identifying Islam as many of the founders did —”the cult of Mahammet” They defend their charismatic throat cutter
mad prophet as if he were deity—much like the folk who followed Jim Jones-or David Koresh defended their cult hero.
A club I reserve more for the pervs that visit “gentlemens clubs”


19 posted on 09/16/2010 4:03:45 AM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
The courts found that the police action removing people from private businesses violated the Equal Protection Clause.

So the question is, is a gutter religion a private business!!!

20 posted on 09/16/2010 4:11:20 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

*


21 posted on 09/16/2010 4:25:52 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3 (Obama is everything Oklahoma is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott

Wonder if they have been killed since then....


22 posted on 09/16/2010 4:33:39 AM PDT by MagnoliaB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
Three D.C. Metropolitan police officers entered the center, at the direction of an imam, and removed six Muslim women. Their crime? They were worshiping peacefully in the main prayer hall after the imam announced that women were forbidden to enter that area.

If these were Muslim women who normally worshiped at that mosque, the police had no business becoming involved. Since they were Muslim, it seems it'd be hard make a case for trespassing unless they had been told previously not to come on any part of the property. Probably not enough information.

23 posted on 09/16/2010 4:47:08 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

For years, the police have been called for PC “violations.” So this is not surprising. The police are not there to protect you and me from criminals. The police are there to carry out the policies of the local administration that hired them.


24 posted on 09/16/2010 5:33:16 AM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (Annoying liberals is my goal. I will not be silenced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

If the police had not removed them, there would have been riots and general mayhen throughout the muzzy world. And it would be all our fault.

(That’s the usual MO for getting their way, isn’t it?)


25 posted on 09/16/2010 5:44:04 AM PDT by CPOSharky (They ain't "illegals." They are just unregistered democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

try this comparison:

a woman in a clerical collar (and a few supporters) walks into a catholic church and goes through the motions of conducting mass. When asked to leave, she refuses.

Should the police respond when called by the rector?


26 posted on 09/16/2010 6:20:13 AM PDT by lack-of-trust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

Seems like the police were removing trespassers from private property at the request of the property owners. The reasons the property owners want the individuals removed is of no interest.


27 posted on 09/16/2010 6:23:40 AM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
Sorry, it's private property and the women were trespassing.

On the ohter hand if the women want to pray outside or protest the discrimination, they are free to do so.

28 posted on 09/16/2010 7:31:31 AM PDT by rmlew ("To put an end to amnesty once and for all...it is time to 'regularize' the status of John McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MagnoliaB
Are these women still alive?

It doesn't matter; they are only women, property of some man or another. < /sarc >

29 posted on 09/16/2010 7:43:55 AM PDT by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty too! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;’ Congress shall not, states may. DC is under the jurisdiction of Congress. The DC cops were prohibiting the free exercise of religion unconstitutionally!


30 posted on 09/16/2010 9:03:39 AM PDT by bonnieblue4me (You can put lipstick on a donkey (or a dimrat), but it is still an ass!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AlexW
"The mosque is probably a private, not public, operation."

If it is private, it is not a true religious enterprise, but rather a private one, meaning that Congress may pass laws prohibiting activities or the exercise of those private activities and any and all tax breaks received by said mosque and any "clergy" should be rescinded! They can't have it both ways.

31 posted on 09/16/2010 9:11:29 AM PDT by bonnieblue4me (You can put lipstick on a donkey (or a dimrat), but it is still an ass!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
Mole Hill meets Mountain.

This is a simple case of trespassing.

32 posted on 09/16/2010 9:14:51 AM PDT by Fundamentally Fair (If exercising the right to free speech invites violence, then girls in short skirts invite rape.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bonnieblue4me
The DC cops were prohibiting the free exercise of religion unconstitutionally!

If I were to decide that I wanted to practice my pagen fertility ritual on the alter of a catholic church in Washington DC, and the cops are called in to remove me (I was asked nicely to leave, but I refuse), is that a violation of my free exercise of religion?

33 posted on 09/16/2010 10:03:26 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: djf

>> It’s not a church, it’s a club.

It’s a war room.


34 posted on 09/16/2010 10:47:36 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
Before you go saying this situation is the same as distinctions of race, remember that not a few Orthodox Jews separate men and women for their services.

The reason?

That is what G-d specified when they received the Law at Sinai.

35 posted on 09/16/2010 10:51:10 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RINOcrat Party is still in charge. There has never been a conservative American government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ntmxx
Islam a crime against humanity!

No Mosque at Ground Zero

36 posted on 09/16/2010 10:55:01 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

No, Mosque...Agreed and thanks.

Here is a well produced video of 3 Basic Things one you should know about Islam and Shari’a Law;

http://www.thewall.net/view/1332/islam-three-things-you-didnt-know-1/

Its only 8 minutes or so and very worth it.

If you have others who would be interested, this should be sent to them.


37 posted on 09/16/2010 11:13:37 AM PDT by ntmxx (I am not so sure about this misdirection!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Fundamentally Fair
"This is a simple case of trespassing."

They're members. The trespassing is then their not playing by the club rules and staying in the back of the bus? I don't think disobeying the club rules is trespass and I find their sitting down a bit less than a disturbance of the peace. I realize people are willing to see trespass due to the fact that they want their own property protected but this is different. They had a right to be there. They are members of the Mosque.

38 posted on 09/16/2010 1:21:23 PM PDT by Rashputin (Obama is already insane and sequestered on golf courses or vacations so you won't know it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
They're members.

If you don't follow the rules, you aren't a member.

39 posted on 09/16/2010 1:35:16 PM PDT by Fundamentally Fair (If exercising the right to free speech invites violence, then girls in short skirts invite rape.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
"The police have no role in enforcing private membership rules and/or beliefs."

Have you heard of the concept of "trespass on private property"? Because trespass is what happened here, not some membership controversy.

If you have an all-mens club, and a woman shows up uninvited or enters a restricted area, do you not expect the police to come and remove the intruder if called and asked by the property owner to do just that?

Or, if a member no longer in good standing shows up, do the police not have the authority to remove him if asked to do so? This is what you're asserting.

No, "The police have no role in enforcing private membership rules and/or beliefs.", but they do have a role in enforcing trespass complaints from private property owners.

40 posted on 09/16/2010 2:24:28 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: visualops
"Same as the blacks at the lunch counter, the restaurant was not “members only”, the counter was whites only. However, whether Islam specifically or just Islamic men, they have a variety of sex-segregation rules."

Right, but you do realize that private clubs and religious schools and places of worship are exempt from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, right?

If not, the Catholic Church would not be allowed to disallow women from becoming priests, follow me?

We aren't talking about a lunch counter, we're talking a place of worship. They are not governed by the same anti-discrimination laws.

Let's say you were at Sunday service, and at that service a group of thirty homosexuals sat in the front row holding signs or wearing shirts that were blasphemous to your church. Do you think that the minister/priest/rabbi of your church would have the legal authority to order them to leave, and if they didn't could he call the police, who would then enforce the wishes of the private property owner?

I think you know the answer to that question.

41 posted on 09/16/2010 2:31:37 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bonnieblue4me
"If it is private, it is not a true religious enterprise, "

I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. You must not be thinking through what you're saying. Catholic Churches aren't private? Of course they are. They are tax-exempt because they promise not to engage in political dialogue, that's all.

But, the Church controls who is or is not a member, right? Have you ever heard of excommunication? Do you think you have right to appeal your excommunication to the court? Of course you don't. Why? Because the Church, like all churches, is a wholly private enterprise.

42 posted on 09/16/2010 2:46:02 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Will88

Religions have a right to set their own rules—on private property. Orthodox Jews, and even a few Christian groups (the Amish perhaps? some of the Eastern Orthodox?) traditionally separate men and women in worship—as Muslims always do.

If homosexuals came into your Church dressed in drag...attempting to disrupt your service, don’t you have the right to call the police and have them removed?

These women were doing the same kind of protest—as the main prayers in Mosques always separate men and women. When the women refused to follow the rules (even though you and I don’t like Islam’s rules here) they became trespassers, and the Mosque had a right to expect the police to remove them (just like police should remove any protestors from any religious or private property).

We should be concerned about the many Mosques on American soil which preach violence against the government—NOT the ones that simply rely on the same law we all expect to rely on.


43 posted on 09/16/2010 3:30:24 PM PDT by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
When the women refused to follow the rules (even though you and I don’t like Islam’s rules here) they became trespassers,

What statutes can you cite that define this situation as trespassing? If a teen aged member of a protestant church went to the young adults Sunday School class and refused to leave, are the police required to respond?

Your example of gays dressed is drag disrupting a service is far beyond someone worshiping in an area designated for others. These women were probably regulars in that mosque. And the same concept you cite was once cited by business owners to refuse service on the basis of race rather than sex.

Are there actual statutes that specify situations like this in a place of worship as trespassing, or just your opinion that trespassing laws would apply?

44 posted on 09/16/2010 4:01:06 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

And many here keep saying the mosque is private property. Who owns it? Specifically who has an ownership interest and who does not? I doubt anyone here knows that, or whether Muslims have formal membership requirements, and whether these members were members.


45 posted on 09/16/2010 4:08:22 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Will88; AnalogReigns
"What statutes can you cite that define this situation as trespassing? "

In FL (my state), it's 810.08.

Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance.

When you are on private property, you are there by invitation. That invitation may be withdrawn at any time. If you are on private property without leave of the owner, you are - by definition - trespassing.

"If a teen aged member of a protestant church went to the young adults Sunday School class and refused to leave, are the police required to respond?"

Yes. One of the roles of law enforcement is to protect the rights of the public. One of those rights, of course, is the right of private property owners. And, as I have pointed out, those "young adults" would be (at least in FL) in violation of FL statute.

"Are there actual statutes that specify situations like this in a place of worship as trespassing, or just your opinion that trespassing laws would apply?"

Are you being argumentative, or sarcastic?

46 posted on 09/16/2010 6:26:07 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Will88
"And many here keep saying the mosque is private property. Who owns it? Specifically who has an ownership interest and who does not? I doubt anyone here knows that, or whether Muslims have formal membership requirements, and whether these members were members."

Really, it's not that complicated, which leads me to believe you're being argumentative.

Who owns it? The corporation, partnership or sole propriety that is the religious enterprise owns it. There are officers of that corporation and those officers or designees, enjoy the rights that any private property owner enjoys.

If you walk into a church and the parish priest or his designee tells you to leave and you don't leave, you're trespassing. It's not that complicated.

47 posted on 09/16/2010 6:31:02 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Really, it's not that complicated, which leads me to believe you're being argumentative.

Or maybe many on here post things as fact they can't really substantiate. At the end of my first post, I said the article probably doesn't provide enough information to draw conclusions. I'm sticking with that unless someone provides some specific statutes or court cases that address this as it relates to mosques or churches. There might not be any precedents for this specific circumstance, and I wouldn't wait for those Muslim women to file a law suit to clarify it.

And one can never be certain how a court might rule on such a highly specific set of circumstances as this. I'm calling it a gray area of the law until it's clarified by reference to statutes or a court case.

48 posted on 09/16/2010 7:07:47 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin; OldDeckHand
Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy pretty effectively dismantles Prof. Rotunda's arguments here.

The conviction in Garner v. Louisiana was overturned on due process, not equal protection, grounds because the State did not produce enough evidence to support a disturbing the peace conviction under the Louisiana statute.

Both Lombard v. Louisiana and Peterson v. Greenville involved trespassing convictions that were the result of police enforcing city ordinances that required segregation. The property owner in each case was compelled by law to ask the black customer/protesters to leave.

None of those three cases are applicable to what happened at the mosque. The only state action here was the police enforcing the private property owner's right to exclude people of his choosing from his property. There is certainly no law in DC that I am aware of that required the imam to exclude women from certain areas of the mosque.
49 posted on 09/16/2010 7:26:12 PM PDT by The Pack Knight (Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and the world laughs at you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88
"Or maybe many on here post things as fact they can't really substantiate. At the end of my first post, I said the article probably doesn't provide enough information to draw conclusions. "

Of course it does. You have to use just a little common sense.

You said in an earlier post, "And many here keep saying the mosque is private property."

Of course it's private property. How many mosques or other places of worship are on public property? Here's a hint - ZERO (other than those built, staffed and maintained by the US Armed Forces). In this country (with VERY limited exception), property is either public (owned by the government on behalf of the people), or it's private - deeded and titled to a private individual, partnership, or corporation.

If it's private property - and it's CLEARLY private property - then the owner (and his designee) enjoy the full rights and privileges of any private property owner.

"There might not be any precedents for this specific circumstance, and I wouldn't wait for those Muslim women to file a law suit to clarify it."

Again, think about what you're saying - you think that there might be a chance that plaintiffs in a lawsuit will win an injunction to tell a house of worship how it may exercise its fundamental 1A right. Does that seem at all likely?

To take the thought exercise one step further, do you think a woman could sue a Catholic church because the church wouldn't make her a priest? Does that seem likely? Of course not.

There are a whole host of Supreme Court cases where the Court affirms a private group's right to not associate, Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) and Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) are just two that come to mind immediately. But, there are others.

The Church (or mosque in this case) enjoys a robust 1A right to limit, exclude or define its membership, as well as a robust right to define or structure its religious services, to include the gender segregation of those services. The police in this case did the only thing they could do, and what they were legally obligated to do - enforce the private property rights of the owner, and remove the trespassers.

50 posted on 09/16/2010 7:27:52 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson