Do they drive Jeeps?
Mike
David Allen wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > >If you don't like the church nobody says you have to live in Salt Lake > City?
> > >The USA is still a mighty big place.
> >
> > That's not the way it work in the USA. We have certain rights. Those
> > rights are not suspended because a lot of people in a particular
> > area happen to be of a certain sort.
> >
>
> But that's not what's happening here. No rights are being suspended. Had
> the church no respect for rights protected by the constitution they wouldn't
> have bothered paying $8 million to make the area private. And private
> property is a right as well as speech.
>
> > >From what I have been able to gather, there is a small area of the city
> > >where the church has an admin building and a major temple. If > temple-goers
> > >can't go to pray there in peace and quiet where can they go?
> >
> > The issue is that the city sold the Mormons a public street so that
> > they could make their area "private" and keep out hecklers. The
> > public was apparently under the impression that the area was to
> > remain publicly accessible with normal rights. The Mormons were
> > under the impression that they could do what they want(ed) with > > the land. > >
>
> The church bought the property IN ORDER TO be able to regulate the behavior
> of visitors. There was no misunderstanding about this. The city and the
> church agreed beforehand the area would be private with a limited easement
> allowing pubic access but not allowing bad behavior. There were lots of
> public announcements and forums before the deal was done.
>
> Those who fought it understood the deal. They always intended to fight it
> when it went through. The issue the courts ruled on was speech rights on
> private property with limited easements. The first ruling was in favor of
> the church, the appeals court overturned and it was headed for the supreme
> court. Both rights are important; private property and speech. But there
> is boundary between the two.
>
> It became moot when the city gave up the easements in return for some
> property on the other side of town and a promise by the church to allow
> public access. Everyone is happy except the enemies of the church, who have
> no moral ground to stand on in this case.
>
> > >How would
> > >Roman Catholics feel if they were heckled & booed every time they went > into
> > >or came out of St Peter's?
> >
> > Well, they do get a bit of heckling in the areas where the priests,
> > bishops, and cardinals are criminals guilty of molesting children
> > and/or criminal conspiracy to cover it up.
> >
>
> The issue isn't about whether heckling is good or bad, deserved or
> undeserved. It's about where heckling and protest rights and private
> property rights meet. You can't just dispense with private property rights. >
> > But, if the Mormons are entitled to a "no hecklng" zone, then so
> > is every other organization.
>
> This isn't about the church being "entitled" to a "no heckling" zone. In
> fact the church didn't take that tac at all. They purchased the property
> making it private property with the rights that come with it. All
> organizations have the same private property rights.