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.
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.
I didn't know our elected officials had the power to censor... thats a new one.
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.
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.
Sounds more like a 'homeowners association' egotist flexing his 'power'. The link provided little background though.
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?
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.
Gay Rights versus the rights of Christians. Guess which one is actually in the Constitution.
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.
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.
Activist homosexuals and over zealous ministers--both give me agida
Idiot - when we said "Free Speech" we didn't mean for Christians...
Gay Rights versus the rights of Christians. Guess which one is actually in the Constitution.
__________________
ummmm,neither?
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".
Hope the minister wins but in this slowly but surely forsaking God country I doubt it.
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.
>>>>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.
_______________
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.
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.