CatholicCid Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1298778477' post='2216006'] "Labor issue." Hm. Depends. Does the Catholic Church allow openly deviant priests to work for it? ~Sternhauser [/quote] Considering that the ACLU request to the Chicago Police Department specifically pointed out the ordinance's exemption allowing protests for "labor picketing comprises speaker-based and content-based discrimination," it would seem that this was not a labor-based protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted February 27, 2011 Author Share Posted February 27, 2011 [quote name='CatholicCid' timestamp='1298778440' post='2216005'] I'm assuming you are referring to the ordinance. The ACLU, on behalf of the GLN protesting, contacted the Chicago Police Department concerning this. While the ACLU believe this ordinance violates the 1st Amendment, it is currently a valid ordinance. Here is a more of the backstory from the ACLU: http://www.aclu-il.org/standing-up-for-the-first-amendment-in-chicago/ It contain's the city's response to the ACLU challenge of the ordinance: http://www.aclu-il.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Letter-from-Georges-1-26-11.pdf The city did, as the letter shows, chose to not enforce this specific ordinance for this specific protest. [/quote] So, unless the ACLU doesn't even count as enough evidence, the original story accurately reported the situation. And as the ACLU states, the law is enforced for other groups, just not Catholics. The prejudice here then is clear. If the law is changed, fine, but as it stands now, this amounts to unjust discrimination against a religious group. I would also like to know if the protesters were actually peaceful. I would find it reasonable that parishioners would find it intimidating to have to walk through a crowd of protesters screaming at me or getting in my face so I could go to Mass. As one parishioner said "I just want to go to Mass". It also bespeaks to the question of what it means that one person was almost attacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted February 27, 2011 Author Share Posted February 27, 2011 [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1298776849' post='2215990'] My prerogative is to not jump to conclusions about who did what and start talking about how the poor Catholics are getting hosed. I'm giving the Mayor, the Statepolice, and the deviants the benefit of the doubt. That's how poorly-written that article was. Do you know how frustrating it is to have to do[i] that[/i] in order to remain intellectually honest? ~Sternhauser [/quote] Yes, I did wonder if someone had not hacked your account. I am giving Catholics and Cardinal George the benefit of the doubt. BTW, you can change your own status now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 still waiting to see some facts, cause the news report hardley had any, they were mostly opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1298779972' post='2216028'] still waiting to see some facts, cause the news report hardley had any, they were mostly opinions. [/quote] Please refer back to my previous posts in this topic. [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=111350&view=findpost&p=2215992"]Post 37[/url]: The actual Chicago ordinance that was being violated. If you would like a direct link to the Chicago Municipal Code in question, it can be found [url="http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicago_il/title8offensesaffectingpublicpeacemorals/chapter8-4publicpeaceandwelfare?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicago_il$anc=JD_8-4-010"]here[/url]. [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=111350&view=findpost&p=2216005"]Post 43[/url]: The ACLU's statements on the matter. This includes the actual request to the Chicago Police Department, asking if the ordinance would be enforced, and the City of Chicago's response, that it would not be enforced at that time. Edited February 27, 2011 by CatholicCid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southern california guy Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298779296' post='2216019'] Yes, I did wonder if someone had not hacked your account. I am giving Catholics and Cardinal George the benefit of the doubt. BTW, you can change your own status now. [/quote] I agree. The ACLU wrote the police and argued that the First Amendment should allow the homosexual group to break the law. (This is from the ACLU website: www.aclu-il.org ) [color="#483D8B"]On January 21st, the ACLU of Illinois wrote to the Chicago Police Department on behalf of the GLN. The ACLU explained that the GLN will not obstruct the flow of pedestrian traffic on this sidewalk, or block parishioners from entering or leaving the Cathedral. The ACLU’s letter makes clear that this broad ban violates the First Amendment. The ACLU pointed out that the ordinance contains an exemption for labor picketing, creating speaker-based and content-based discrimination. We also noted that while the City can regulate disruptive activity that interferes with the conduct of a religious service, the government cannot ban all expressive activity within 150 feet of [b]all[/b] places of worship. We asked the CPD to let us know if they were going to enforce the ordinance at the GLN’s demonstration. On January 25th, Chicago Corporation Counsel Mara Georges responded, saying that the City “does not intend to enforce” this ordinance at this time. This means that a peaceful demonstration will be able to go forward. [/color] The point is that they didn't enforce the ordinance, which I'm sure was designed to prevent violence. Even if the homosexual group argued that they were going to hold a peaceful demonstration there is no guarantee that it would turn out that way. I would guess that if they continue holding "peaceful" protests then eventually there is going to be violence. Edited February 27, 2011 by southern california guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='CatholicCid' timestamp='1298778440' post='2216005']I'm assuming you are referring to the ordinance. The ACLU, on behalf of the GLN protesting, contacted the Chicago Police Department concerning this. While the ACLU believe this ordinance violates the 1st Amendment, it is currently a valid ordinance. Here is a more of the backstory from the ACLU: http://www.aclu-il.org/standing-up-for-the-first-amendment-in-chicago/ It contain's the city's response to the ACLU challenge of the ordinance: http://www.aclu-il.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Letter-from-Georges-1-26-11.pdf The city did, as the letter shows, chose to not enforce this specific ordinance for this specific protest.[/quote]So it seems to avoid a lawsuit the municipal government realized they didn't want to enforce this ordinance, which is their prerogative.[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298779146' post='2216016']So, unless the ACLU doesn't even count as enough evidence, the original story accurately reported the situation. And as the ACLU states, the law is enforced for other groups, just not Catholics. The prejudice here then is clear. If the law is changed, fine, but as it stands now, this amounts to unjust discrimination against a religious group. I would also like to know if the protesters were actually peaceful.[b] I would find it reasonable that parishioners would find it intimidating to have to walk through a crowd of protesters screaming at me or getting in my face so I could go to Mass. As one parishioner said "I just want to go to Mass". It also bespeaks to the question of what it means that one person was almost attacked.[/b][/quote]Supposedly maybe possibly could of been almost attacked, what is this world coming to? Screaming in their faces, where was that?[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1298781437' post='2216050']I agree. The ACLU wrote the police and argued that the First Amendment should allow the homosexual group to break the law. (This is from the ACLU website: www.aclu-il.org ) [color="#483D8B"]On January 21st, the ACLU of Illinois wrote to the Chicago Police Department on behalf of the GLN. The ACLU explained that the GLN will not obstruct the flow of pedestrian traffic on this sidewalk, or block parishioners from entering or leaving the Cathedral. The ACLU’s letter makes clear that this broad ban violates the First Amendment. The ACLU pointed out that the ordinance contains an exemption for labor picketing, creating speaker-based and content-based discrimination. We also noted that while the City can regulate disruptive activity that interferes with the conduct of a religious service, the government cannot ban all expressive activity within 150 feet of [b]all[/b] places of worship. We asked the CPD to let us know if they were going to enforce the ordinance at the GLN’s demonstration. On January 25th, Chicago Corporation Counsel Mara Georges responded, saying that the City “does not intend to enforce” this ordinance at this time. This means that a peaceful demonstration will be able to go forward. [/color] The point is that they didn't enforce the ordinance, which I'm sure was designed to prevent violence. Even if the homosexual group argued that they were going to hold a peaceful demonstration there is no guarantee that it would turn out that way. I would guess that if they continue holding "peaceful" protests then eventually there is going to be violence.[/quote]So it seems the Mayor did NOT instruct the police to ignore or not enforce any laws. It was "[i]Chicago Corporation Counsel[/i]" and it was regarding a City Ordinance. The City can choose how and when to enforce their own ordinances, moreover if there is concern that those ordinances may be unconstitutional or illegal in the first place. So it seems the City did the right thing AND they had police to monitor and oversee the peaceful protest on a public sidewalk. Tragic. Edited February 27, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1298782659' post='2216060'] So it seems to avoid a lawsuit the municipal government realized they didn't want to enforce this ordinance, which is their prerogative. [/quote] I must admit, I am not well versed in law. What is the difference between an ordinance and a law? Since this ordinance has been used in other instances (note the Church of Scientology reference in the ACLU statement), how and why can an ordinance be determined to be "not enforced" for a certain event? Would they not be just as open to a lawsuit now from Holy Name Cathedral? I'm confused at how a valid ordinance could simply be ignored for an event. If an ordinance is unconstitutional, would it not have to be removed by the lawmakers? Until then, it would seem to be valid and I'm confused at how the Police can determine it's 'constitutionality' and choose to ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 [quote name='CatholicCid' timestamp='1298783457' post='2216064']I must admit, I am not well versed in law. What is the difference between an ordinance and a law? Since this ordinance has been used in other instances (note the Church of Scientology reference in the ACLU statement), how and why can an ordinance be determined to be "not enforced" for a certain event? Would they not be just as open to a lawsuit now from Holy Name Cathedral? I'm confused at how a valid ordinance could simply be ignored for an event. If an ordinance is unconstitutional, would it not have to be removed by the lawmakers? Until then, it would seem to be valid and I'm confused at how the Police can determine it's 'constitutionality' and choose to ignore it.[/quote]I will admit, in this area of law I am not as well versed as I would like. But my understanding is a government, normally the Executive, decides the "who, what, when, why, where, and how" their laws/ordinances are enforced. Where will police patrol? What activity will have follow up investigations and which won't? What situations would enforcing a law/ordinance be problematic? Because it's all a question of money, time, resources, employees, popular opinion, and legality. In this situation the City decided that its attention was best served elsewhere, moreover in sight of a possible lawsuit, over something that popular opinion doesn't care about. Moreover, there is the possibility the ordinance itself is illegal, unconstitutional, and a violation of human rights. I suspect it can vary place to place, but here ordinances have limited scope and are subject to law, municipal governments can be considered "[i]creatures of the state"[/i] thus exist at the whim of the State. So in the event that the City realized that a bigger law, say the Constitution, could be violated they hypothetically are obligated to not enforce that ordinance. If a City discovered that an ordinance required Catholics to pay a special tax because their Catholics, keeping to their obligations or to save trouble, they may just opt to not enforce it and change it if necessary. Which seems to be what happened here. The non-enforcement of this supposed ordinance doesn't cry out to me as criminal. Neither does peaceful protesters on a public sidewalk. But I admit, I am sure all of this is tragic, because I suspect the protesters don't realize no one cares. It's like here when thousands of student immigrants BUSED to the central high school here to protest... er... when did the central high school set federal immigration policy? But why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1298784327' post='2216068'] I will admit, in this area of law I am not as well versed as I would like. But my understanding is a government, normally the Executive, decides the "who, what, when, why, where, and how" their laws/ordinances are enforced. Where will police patrol? What activity will have follow up investigations and which won't? What situations would enforcing a law/ordinance be problematic? Because it's all a question of money, time, resources, employees, popular opinion, and legality. In this situation the City decided that its attention was best served elsewhere, moreover in sight of a possible lawsuit, over something that popular opinion doesn't care about. Moreover, there is the possibility the ordinance itself is illegal, unconstitutional, and a violation of human rights. [/quote] This is true. That is an aspect of why burn and noise ordinances can be very flexible. And ultimately, an unenforced law is not a law. It was a waste of resources to enforce parking violations during the L.A. riots. (Apparently, it was a waste of resources to have any Statepolice anywhere but the outskirts of Beverly Hills during the riots.) ~Sternhauser Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1298819505' post='2216110']This is true. That is an aspect of why burn and noise ordinances can be very flexible. And ultimately, an unenforced law is not a law. It was a waste of resources to enforce parking violations during the L.A. riots. (Apparently, it was a waste of resources to have any Statepolice anywhere but the outskirts of Beverly Hills during the riots.) [/quote]People and laws both are apart of good governance. Similarly, people and laws can be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 be like saint peter in acts of apostles. when he was persecuted for his faith he jumped for joy. he was so happy he could be persecuted for Jesus. we should be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1298830719' post='2216148'] be like saint peter in acts of apostles. when he was persecuted for his faith he jumped for joy. he was so happy he could be persecuted for Jesus. we should be the same. [/quote] What he [i]should[/i] have done was insist that Caesar's boys draw their swords to protect him, like he did for Jesus. ~Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 Stern's siding with[i] the cops[/i] on this one??! This is indeed a sign of the End Times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1298845083' post='2216209'] Stern's siding with[i] the cops[/i] on this one??! This is indeed a sign of the End Times. [/quote] Not so much siding with them as having a healthy respect for reality, no matter whose actions conform to it. ~Sternhauser Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now