Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Minister Protests Removal Of Anti-Gay Billboards
The Indy Channel ^ | August 9, 2006 | AP

Posted on 08/09/2006 11:14:54 AM PDT by Abathar

NEW YORK -- A minister in New York said billboards he paid for displaying a Bible verse that condemned homosexual behavior were removed after the president of the Staten Island borough called the message intolerant, offensive and unwelcome.

The Rev. Kristopher Okwedy's lawsuit against the former official was heard Tuesday by a three-judge federal panel.

Okwedy's attorney, Stephen Crampton of the American Family Association, said the case highlights the conflict between gay rights and the right of Christians to publicly quote Bible passages that declare such behavior sinful.

Crampton predicts that the issue will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: New York
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; aclumia; antitheist; censorship; churchandstate; doublestandard; firstamendment; freespeech; homosexualagenda; libertarians; newyork; pc; politicalcorrectness; politicallycorrect; religiousfreedom
If it was a sign that PROMOTED those same things then it would be fine by everyone involved though...
1 posted on 08/09/2006 11:14:55 AM PDT by Abathar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Wow. You can't display anything religious on public property, and now they are saying you can't do it on private property as well.

Pretty soon, you won't be able to pay for an ad in a paper doing the same.


2 posted on 08/09/2006 11:17:21 AM PDT by Madeleine Ward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

I didn't know our elected officials had the power to censor... thats a new one.


3 posted on 08/09/2006 11:20:24 AM PDT by GeronL (http://www.mises.org/story/1975 <--no such thing as a fairtax)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

If that was done on private property, that's the same as holding signs at a protest. This should be an easy case of a right under the first amendment right ursurped by the government. Anybody who's angry about Bush should just remember him the next 20 or so years every time that a case goes to the supreme court.


4 posted on 08/09/2006 11:23:03 AM PDT by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

If that was done on private property, that's the same as holding signs at a protest. This should be an easy case of a right under the first amendment right ursurped by the government. Anybody who's angry about Bush should just remember him the next 20 or so years every time that a case goes to the supreme court.


5 posted on 08/09/2006 11:23:05 AM PDT by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

Sounds more like a 'homeowners association' egotist flexing his 'power'. The link provided little background though.


6 posted on 08/09/2006 11:24:53 AM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

They should at least get their money back for the cost of the billboards so they can use that for the legal fees. Going all the way to the SCOTUS is costly, no?


7 posted on 08/09/2006 11:25:20 AM PDT by scuba - doo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
I guess the question I have is, who took the sign down? Did the borough president use strongarm tactics to silence free speech in a private forum, or did the sign company just cave to pressure?

Probably a little of both. If the minister had a contract for a certain length of time with the sign company and they violated it, then I'd say he has a suit against them too. I'd say he definitely has a suit against the borough president for violating his civil rights, as long as the sign wasn't on borough property or something.

8 posted on 08/09/2006 11:26:24 AM PDT by Kenton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kenton

Gay Rights versus the rights of Christians. Guess which one is actually in the Constitution.


9 posted on 08/09/2006 11:34:05 AM PDT by massgopguy (massgopguy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

Article 1 Section 7 (Sundays excepted)--and the "establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First
Amendment"clearly enough answer your tongue in cheek query.
When the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted Sodomy was yet a criminal act -and Christianity part of the
common law. Challenge any fornicator to show me where there is any right to homosexual behavior anywhere in the
US Constitution.Now our Courts have favored the homosexual
over the Christian suggesting something only they can see
in the punumbra or shadows of the constitution.In religion
we refer to such as cultic activity.


10 posted on 08/09/2006 11:42:53 AM PDT by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

Neither group is specified in the constituion. All people's rights are what is in that document. However, if you refer to other founding documents such as the declaration of independance, you'll find Christians mentioned there, and no mention of the gays.


11 posted on 08/09/2006 11:43:35 AM PDT by prous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

Activist homosexuals and over zealous ministers--both give me agida


12 posted on 08/09/2006 11:43:35 AM PDT by brooklyn dave (CUBA LIBRE! can't wait--Ding Dong Fidel is Dead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar


Idiot - when we said "Free Speech" we didn't mean for Christians...


13 posted on 08/09/2006 11:48:22 AM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

Gay Rights versus the rights of Christians. Guess which one is actually in the Constitution.
__________________

ummmm,neither?


14 posted on 08/09/2006 11:49:23 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: prous

However, if you refer to other founding documents such as the declaration of independance, you'll find Christians mentioned there, and no mention of the gays.
___________

A full text search of the Declaration of Independence fails to turn up the word "Christian".


15 posted on 08/09/2006 11:54:49 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dmz
Yes, you are correct. It doesn't mention Christian specifically, but it does mention God. Perhaps we aren't supposed to infer that it's referring to the Christian God, but that's what I believe it's doing.
16 posted on 08/09/2006 11:59:55 AM PDT by prous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

Hope the minister wins but in this slowly but surely forsaking God country I doubt it.


17 posted on 08/09/2006 12:03:15 PM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk
Seems if I recollect correctly....just about the same timing on the public barrage was started to be unleashed through movie subjects (Hollyweird), TV, talk shows, MSM coverage, etc.; well that's about the same time the radical Islamofascists began the ramp-up in their attacks on (kidnapping / bombing / murder) Americans / non-Muslims.....hhhmmmmm prez Carter forward time frame.

Government support of a perverted social behavior that without a doubt supports the spread of AIDS. That is, from 1984 forward, the government support in non-prosecution of acts of sodomy and eventual repeal of those laws on the books. Now that would be some interesting research.

So now, perpetuation of the homosexual agenda and appeasement of terrorists is the correct thing to do if one enjoys being politically correct.

I've heard that the NEA is 'pushing hard' for first teaching the elementary Hispanic kids (that can't speak English) 'Gay & Lesbian Appreciation and Awareness' and that would be followed by .... 'Why Mommy & Daddy Should Be Democrats'...."Taxes are Good for You'..... 'Why School Vouchers Suck'......and finally 'Why Christan Conservatives are Bad for the World'......then English classes.

18 posted on 08/09/2006 12:09:34 PM PDT by RSmithOpt (Liberalism: Highway to Hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

>>>>Gay Rights versus the rights of Christians. Guess which one is actually in the Constitution.

But guess which one NY signed a PARTNERSHIP with?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593821/posts?page=30#30 through post 33.

NY is signed onto the LGBT community. Partnered. IOW, LGBT now owns NY via grant monies.

And info sharing. Anything the monies touch, FOIA releases data to the LGBT overseeing agent.


19 posted on 08/09/2006 12:10:41 PM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dmz
Gay Rights versus the rights of Christians. Guess which one is actually in the Constitution.

_______________

ummmm,neither?

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The right to freely exercise religion it the FIRST thing addressed by the bill of rights. The very first thing.

20 posted on 08/09/2006 12:40:06 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

Nice try. Those are the rights of the people, a subset of whom are Christian, another subset would be gay people. So your comment applies equally to both.


21 posted on 08/09/2006 1:09:08 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dmz

But Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Who do you think that's referring to?

Is the Constitution unconstitutional? Based on the logic of some of these judges lately, yes.


22 posted on 08/09/2006 1:25:07 PM PDT by CheyennePress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

THIS is censorship.


23 posted on 08/09/2006 1:27:01 PM PDT by Skooz (Chastity prays for me, piety sings...Modesty hides my thighs in her wings...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kenton

This isn't just a civil rights case. This is quite clearly a violation of one's Constitutional rights to freely practice one's religion.


24 posted on 08/09/2006 1:27:18 PM PDT by CheyennePress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
the president of the Staten Island borough called the message intolerant, offensive and unwelcome.

"America it is said is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance, tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so over run with the bigoted, as it is over run with the broadminded. Tolerance, is an attitude of reasoned patience towards evil . . .a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons...never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error.... Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscraper as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratories."- Bishop Fulton Sheen 1931

25 posted on 08/09/2006 1:32:47 PM PDT by murphE (These are days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

so now governments are free to PROHIBIT the free exercise of religion?


26 posted on 08/09/2006 1:35:56 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dmz
Nice try. Those are the rights of the people, a subset of whom are Christian, another subset would be gay people. So your comment applies equally to both.

Umm, your answer was neither, so even by your own attempts to argue semantics, you were wrong.

Yes the are the rights of all people. And the religious rights of all people are protected. The right to freedom of religion is expressly protected.

We have a constitutional right to be Christian if we so choose.

Are you now saying that someone also has a constitutional right to be gay? Feel free to make that argument, but please support it.

"Gay" people do have constitutional rights, and if you'd like to try and present an argument that the scriptures posted on a privately owned billboard somehow infringes upon those rights, go ahead and give it a try.

27 posted on 08/09/2006 2:17:44 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dmz

Not one shred of scientific evidence proves that God
"created them male,female(and gay),it is as it has been
written -homosexuality is a learned behavior and destructive at that.


28 posted on 08/09/2006 4:38:56 PM PDT by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CheyennePress
This isn't just a civil rights case. This is quite clearly a violation of one's Constitutional rights to freely practice one's religion.

Yes. Freedom of religion is one of your civil rights, and I used the term in that context.

"Civil rights" is a term that has been used so often to mean what might be more accurately called "minority rights" that it's easy to confuse the true meaning of the term.

ANY violation of your Constitutional rights is a violation of your civil rights. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are BOTH protected by the same First Amendment.

29 posted on 08/10/2006 4:51:54 AM PDT by Kenton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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