The battle continues.

20 comments

• motorhead

  •

  9 years ago

  "very false" Well, if the claims are "very" false then they should take some time to reconsider.
• sharkhunter

  •

  9 years ago

  They were topless protestors? Got pics? If I lived in the area I would drive by just to watch.
• JohnSmith69

  •

  9 years ago

  Suing the club is definitely the Christian thing to do. Love your neighbor and all that. That church is a disgrace. But I know the male church members are hoping the lawsuit fails.
• sharkhunter

  •

  9 years ago

  If I lived there, I would invite the protestors to sit in front of me. or on top of my lap. :) They should have a right to attend church services if they stop them from sitting outside on the curb. Maybe without the signs though.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  9 years ago

  These evangelical churches, that is part of their ideology that if you don't go along with them that they are being persecuted and discriminated against. Here where I live I am involved in fights like this on a daily basis. It is a constant struggle to stop local government from turning tax payer funded resources over to them. If you want to really understand the history of this: [view link] Religious groups have been getting away with all manner of stuff. Sometimes it is literally rape and murder. SJG [view link]
• rockstar666

  •

  9 years ago

  How come idiots who wave the Constitution in front of us don't even understand it? The First Amendment says GOVERNMENT can't suppress or endorse any particular religion. Strippers are just as entitled to protest, even if their cause is somewhat murky in this case. As for the access complaint, the police are legally allowed to create a buffer zone between the entrance and the topless babes.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  9 years ago

  We have lots of Born Again Charities where I live, and they want to use public parks or otherwise engage with local government. To an extent they style their actions like a protest. But they aren't actually saying that the laws are wrong. They are saying that their religion places them above the law. This is not the same. They are actually asking government to shred the Constitution and endorse them and submit to them. One of them, "I work for Jesus, so I can do whatever I want." This was an issue with Martin Luther King too. He right away went with the Montgomery Bus Boycott. But he opposed the Lunch Counter Sit Ins because that was illegal and he claimed, "Un-Christian". Later he reversed. But he claimed to be following Gandhi, but he did not seem to understand Gandhi. King was always falling into this trap of claiming to be morally superior, and hence above the law. Gandhi was never saying anything of the sort. It is like Cornell West says of him, "Non-violence was a tactic, but not a strategy. He pursued non-violence, but a violent option was always available." King made non-violence and moral superiority the objective. It was like this up to the Edmund Pettis Bridge matter, and the Voting Rights Act passage. But then after this he did change. During the last two years of his life he did speak against the War In Vietnam and against Capitalism itself. SJG [view link]
• TheeOSU

  •

  9 years ago

  The church was doing the same thing to the club and the club is returning the favor.
• grinddawg

  •

  9 years ago

  This is pure hippie liberal bullshit. If the parks and other public places in San Francisco allow homos, feminists, transformers, and other groups to hold rallies in the parks, then by law they have to also allow access to these facilities by faith based organizations. No government rule can limit otherwise protected free speech based on the message unless it's narrowly related to a compelling government interest. "To an extent they style their actions like a protest. But they aren't actually saying that the laws are wrong. They are saying that their religion places them above the law. This is not the same. They are actually asking government to shred the Constitution and endorse them and submit to them."
• san_jose_guy

  •

  9 years ago

  In most cities there are permit requirements for assemblies over a certain size and for when there will be live entertainment or anything like preaching or exhibiting things for sale. There are often permit requirements when their will be food. Now yes, those intent on a protest are not always going to be lawful. And non-violent civil disobedience is a tradition in this country and most others. But the Born Again groups usually don't admit that they are being unlawful, and they aren't trying to say that the laws are unjust. Rather they are saying that because of their religion, they are above the law. Then also they are saying that because local government and the population aren't lining up behind them in their religious views, that the population is immoral / unsaved / without Jesus. Now yes, these groups are entitled to their views. But it is essential that local government not capitulate in any way. They must not endorse religion and this idea that they are above the law. They must enforce the law the same as they would with anyone else. They cannot sign on to the mission. Unfortunately local government is usually taken in. They have police with tear gas, body armor, and assault rifles, but they are afraid of the political consequences of tangling with Bible Brandishers. So I end up having lots of conversations with City Attorneys and Elected Officials. One group which really came into it's own in San Francisco was Food Not Bombs. They destroyed the mayor ship of Frank Jordan. [view link] But they are not saying that they are above the law. They are simply breaking the law. Sometimes they get jailed. But the city is not doing anything wrong by looking the other way and allowing it. That is tolerance. But Born Again groups, in the 25 years since FNB started in San Francisco, imitate it with these park feeds. The Born Again groups have a very different agenda. In allowing them, the city is not showing tolerance, it is showing spinelessness and it is trampling on the Constitution. SJG Stones, ft/ Christina Aguilera [view link]
• crazyjoe

  •

  9 years ago

  Ban churches
• mikeya02

  •

  9 years ago

  Omg, SJG works for the ACLU!
• DoctorPhil

  •

  9 years ago

  ^^^^^^^ there are two glaring errors in your statement. first and most obvious is that you said san_jose_guy "works". of course everyone knows that is not just improbable but it flat out ain't ever going to happen. just ask his ex-mail order bride if you have any doubts. second even the ACLU has some pride. the day they associate with the likes of san_jose_guy will be the day that hell is frozen solid.
• Henry_R1234

  •

  9 years ago

  lol leave it to a church to be so hypocritical.
• JohnSmith69

  •

  9 years ago

  I think SJG is a postal worker.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  9 years ago

  Just to clarify here on this issue of handing over the public square to the religious groups, I am only talking about uses of tax payer funded resources which are illegal. If not illegal, then there is no basis to intercede. But most of the events put on by Food Not Bombs are illegal. They are intended to be illegal. They are following the example of Gandhi and his Salt March. They are breaking seemingly unimportant laws, for the purpose of showing that our society is set up wrong and has the wrong priorities. So often the authorities just do nothing. In San Francisco, Mayor Frank Jordan, a former Police Chief, had come into office pledging to crack down on the homeless. So he took the baiting from Food Not Bombs, and then several times per week there were dozens of police out at city hall and there were police on horseback and police were throwing people to the ground and seizing huge pots of soup. So Foot Not Bombs had as it's number two man, long time activist, Diamond Dave Whitaker. His job was to do the talking when everyone else was in jail. So time after time they would talk with Diamond Dave opposite Frank Jordan's Press Secretary Noah Griffin, on Michael Krazney's KQED Forum. Eventually Griffin would resign and Jordan became a one term Mayor. But in the wake of this, lots of Born Again Groups have emerged, doing what FNB did, illegal park feeds. So you could say that it is civil disobedience, a political protest, so better just to let them do it. But the Born Again groups don't see it as illegal. And the cities often don't either. They think the doctrine of Free Speech protects it. They are wrong, Free Speech has never meant access to any particular place. All it means is that the gov't can make a law against your specific group or your specific message. So what I was always having to explain to San Jose Officials was that if you think they have a right to do this in the park because of Free Speech, then why don't you let them do it in the Mayor's Office? By your reasoning, Free Speech means that you can't lock them out. So eventually saner people interceded for the city and they admitted that this violates city ordinances. So it is just like Food Not Bombs. But still, do they want to do anything about it? And still, there are some with cities who try to protect the city administration itself, by refusing to admit that the city has any legal obligations at all. If one is going to allow unlawful acts because they are part of a non-violent political protest, then one will want to look at what is actually being done, and why. Food Not Bombs feeds people because it is protesting against our society's priorities. Most of these Born Again groups feed people while subjecting them to insults and haranguing, and they do this because they are protesting against the Separation of Church and State. They are protesting because they believe that they above the law. They are protesting against the First Amendment. SJG [view link] Preacher and the Slave [view link] Like a Hurricane [view link]
• mikeya02

  •

  9 years ago

  Are you preaching Helter Skelter Mr. Manson errrrr..SJG?
• DoctorPhil

  •

  9 years ago

  @JohnSmith69 “I think SJG is a postal worker.” well you’ve got the “postal” part correct
• san_jose_guy

  •

  9 years ago

  Mikeya02, is that the kind of stuff you think about? I mean, since I've been on TUSCL you've talked about psychopaths, and the idea that I or someone could be like them. So is that what you think about that people, or yourself, could be just like psychopaths? Is this something you go thru life worrying about, or worrying that you, me, or other people might sometimes sound like psychopaths? People find these psychopaths interesting and they write true and fictional stories based on them because they aren't really any different from anybody else. So is this what you go through life worrying about, and worrying more about appearances than actuality? SJG [view link] Stones, Milwaukee, 2015 [view link]
• DoctorPhil

  •

  9 years ago

  ^^^ stfu you stupid psychopath