Posted on 06/30/2009 12:29:21 PM PDT by pissant
Brian and Doris Johnson have passed out free Bibles at the Twin Cities Pride Festival for 11 years, but this year their free gifts got them arrested. After being told they couldn't have a booth at this year's festival, the family came anyway and ended up behind bars for trespassing.
The Pride Festival started Saturday in Loring Park and is considered the third-largest GLBT celebration in the nation. Since the festival rented out the entire park, police said they could choose which vendors to allow in the park.
The Johnsons are born-again Christians and believe homosexuality is a sin. Pride organizers said their booth with "signs about Jesus, models of fetuses and stack of bibles" caused discussions that offended some participants. Organizers were concerned about letting a vendor discriminate against the GLBT community at their own event.
More from WCCO:
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.citypages.com ...
Very tolerant lot, I see. And I’m supposed to weep for purported injustices done to them? Get out of my face with that silliness.
Should’ve passed out qur’ans just to see what would have happened.
Meanwhile....hundreds of sex acts were taking place on the streets and literature was being passed out on how to have better anal sex.
I wonder what would happen if a gay group tried to put up a booth and hand out gay literature at a church festival?
This from the same group that brings you the ‘rainbow sash’ aimed at disturbing Church services on *private* property..
Their rent payment, their party. Trespassing charges not too steep a price for obeying one’s conscience.
God bless this couple. Let us pray for them. I know God will give them victory, no matter the outcome.
> Pride organizers said their booth with “signs about Jesus, models of fetuses and stack of bibles” caused discussions that offended some participants<
My 2 cents: the freaks and fruits rented the whole park and they can choose whomever they want. The Johnsons were INSIDE the park and that IS trespassing. IF the Johnsons were a few feet OUT of the park away from park, then the cops wouldnt arrest them. They’ve been doing this for 11 years and they should have done this correctly..
On second thought, if they weren’t selling anything, how are they vendors? Was every guest at the event specifically invited? Did no other guests express opinions and give away freebies?
Nothing left to do but shake the dust off your feet.
pearls before swine.
In a city park?
Yeah, I wonder what would happen if a Church tried to keep the homos out.
Probably depend a lot on where they were. I would imagine the police would be called in at some time, if they didn’t leave.
There was no mention of a “parade” but the word here is “event”. To add, the homos were not convinced that even though the Johnsons signed an “anti discrimination” agreement, the organizers were not convinced they were sincere so it was null.
I don’t like the fags either, but every rule has a loophole and the couple failed to simply find it. If they were outside at the entrance, with police protection, and they would have more their case much more visibly than being inside with a hostile majority.
For being homosexuals? If the literature wasn't overtly pornographic (yeah, fat chance, I know), I can't imagine police arresting homosexuals on public property. The cops would be called, but I would put money on a very different outcome.
In general, a government cannot sell away, even temporarily, the right to free expression in a public place.
ok, now all we have to do is wait and see if it happens, and look at the outcome.
Absolutely!
What's the problem? If an evangelical Christian group rented the park for an event, and declined a request from a gay group to set up a booth and distribute literature, and the gay group came to the park and distributed literature anyway, would we object to the arrest of the offending members of the gay group?
“I wonder what would happen if a gay group tried to put up a booth and hand out gay literature at a church festival?”
I know they wouldn’t get the support here on FR that these people are getting.
You have to follow the law. If they were legally entitled to the entire park, then they have a right to choose the vendors.
We don’t need to break the law in order to fight against sin, and it isn’t helping our cause. I wish they had set up their booth as close to the park as possible within the law.
Well, not really. I usually use past experience to help me predict the future, and having lived and worked for a decade in an urban neighborhood with a large homo population, I know exactly how they are treated by metropolitan police departments.
Perhaps some here would not object and perhaps others would but we both know homosexuals never would have been arrested for similar behavior. Ever.
“Pride organizers said their booth with “signs about Jesus, models of fetuses and stack of bibles” caused discussions that offended some participants.”
Of course! We MUSN’T have discussion on this matter! Only gay activists have the right to speak—everyone else should shut up. /sarc
Well I googled Koran and homosexuality....and this is what I found........................................
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/koran.html
Is Homosexuality Allowed In Islam?
The Koran contradicts itself on this topic as well. The following verses state that homosexuality is forbidden.
(Koran 4:16)
If two men among you is guilty of lewdness, punish
them both...
(Koran 27:55)
Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather
than Women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant!
Now the verses below are in clear contradiction of the above verses.
(Koran 52:24)
Round about them will serve, to them, boys
(handsome) as pearls well-guarded.
(Koran 56:17)
Round about them will serve boys of perpetual
freshness.
(Koran 76:19)
And round about them will serve boys of perpetual
freshness: if thou seest them, thou wouldst think
them scattered pearls.
Mohammed could not make up his mind about Sodomy. He prohibits it on earth, but then he says that Muslims can enjoy homosexuality in Paradise. It is a well established fact that many famous Muslims were practicing homosexuals who looked towards the Koran to justify their actions. For example, Babar, the moghul king was madly in love with a young boy named Baburi. Kuttubuddin Aibak, another Muslim ruler of India used to dress up as a woman and dance in a vulgar manner.
Another example is Abu Nuwas—one of the greatest poets in Arabic language writes in the Perfumed Garden:
O the joy of sodomy! So now be sodomites, you Arabs.
Turn not away from it—therein is wondrous pleasure.
Take some coy lad with kiss-curls twisting on his temple
and ride as he stands like some gazelle standing to her mate.
-A lad whom all can see girt with sword and belt
not like your whore who has to go veiled.
Make for smooth-faced boys and do your very best
to mount them, for women are the mounts of the devils.
There are other such poems by Abu Nuwas and others which are more graphic in glorifying homosexuality and lesbianism.
Conclusion:
We come to the conclusion that the Koran is full of contradictions. It is obviously not from God. The contradictions and the difference of writing styles evident in the Koran force us to make the conclusion that either this is a work of an incoherent and delusional individual or the work of not just one, but many people. For example, sometimes the verses are stated as if God is saying them and at other times it seems that someone else is talking about God. The finding of such direct contradictions in the Koran force us to make the above conclusion.
**************************************************************************************
They are all a bunch of filthy disease ridden closet queers too.
Given that a private group rented out the entire park, they should be able to control who can and cannot set up booths. But it’s not clear to me whether they had set up a booth or were just wandering the crowd giving away bibles and literature. If the event was open to the public I don’t see how they can be restricted from this, provided that they weren’t violent, loud or otherwise disrupting the event.
Oh I’m sure the Johnson family wanted to challenge authority and didn’t even mind getting arrested.
Caused discussions that “offended some participants”, eh? Their whole lifestyle is an offense to many. What do they mean to do about that?
So when the KKK or Nazis rent out the entire park for a get together will they be allowed to ban the groups of people they do not like?
Fair is fair isn’t it?
Sounds like the festival and its promoters should be sued for violating the rights of those who tried in good faith to rent a space and got turned away.
Milk the devils dry.
> “Pride has paid a fee to rent the whole park. According to Minneapolis Parks, in that case, Pride does have the right to choose which vendors are allowed.”
It was “not” open to the public. As I have said before, they are free to choose whomever they want as vendors.
Now if it was the other way around say FReerepublic rents an entire park, would you want someone from the ACORN/COI with their own booth inside the park? Jim wouldn’t go for those shenanigans and are inviting a beatdown from Freepers.
If i understand, businesses often have a right to refuse service to people. Because i often go to stores and they have signs that say “Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone.”
I usually don’t predict the future.
I do it all the time. Every action I take is predicated on anticipating what its potential outcome may be.
I can't imagine doing anything else.
If you don't predict the future, then of what use is your past?
They weren't arrested "as vendors."
I prefer the present.
Vendors, booth people, corner freaks..it’s the same.
In general, a government cannot sell away, even temporarily, the right to free expression in a public place.
So, if you rent a shelter or a gazebo in the public park for your wedding, I'm welcome to come and yell during the ceremony, play music, and hold up signs?
Why is a city owned public park being rented out for the exclusive use of ANY group?
Nope.
Are you an amnesiac?
Probably not, but this is different in that the Pride Festival is making political statements.
Now there's nothing wrong with creating rules that promote peaceful coexistence between groups sharing a public space. Limits on noise and such might apply.
And the park is a public place to be shared. But under the first amendment, sharing means allowing multiple points of view to be expressed without fear that those that disagree will use government power to stop that expression. Allowing one group to use police power to arrest those they disagree with isn't peaceful coexistence.
Free speech is as much a part of the rules governing public spaces as are rules against loud music.
And the park is a public place to be shared. But under the first amendment, sharing means allowing multiple points of view to be expressed without fear that those that disagree will use government power to stop that expression. Allowing one group to use police power to arrest those they disagree with isn't peaceful coexistence.
I believe you are wrong.
A good example of case law that points to restrictions being completely legal would be Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston.
The United States Supreme Court Court allowed that private organizations were within their rights to exclude groups that disagreed with them, even if they were going to have a public demonstration (in this case, a Saint Patrick's Day Parade, which closed and made use of public streets).
If you are aware of laws or cases to the contrary, please post them.
Now there's nothing wrong with creating rules that promote peaceful coexistence between groups sharing a public space. Limits on noise and such might apply.
The gay group rented the park, paid for all of the related services, presumably provided security, did all the planning, advertising, etc. What is fair about forcing them to give away something of value (a space at their festival) for free?
Actually it was free to the public, no entrance fee was required. Nor were the the people in question technically “vendors” as they were distributing items for free. I would imagine that if FR were to rent a park they would do something sensible like charge admission. That would give them the legal right to revoke admission for any and all reasons.
Where in the article did it say that it was free to the public?
It didn’t state that in the article. I looked up the event. The only thing that had a charge was the “beer tent”.
The beer tent’?? What’s that for? On 2nd thought, I dont want to know.
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.