Police To Stop Enforcing Laws When Catholics Are Attacked

[southern california guy]

They certainly set a precedent when they chose not to enforce the ordinance. They did enforce the ordinance when protesters wanted to protest outside of the Church of Scientology (At least during services). I wonder if people can now protest outside the Church of Scientology in Chicago when a service is in session. Or would they have to be homosexuals in order to do that???

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1298776705' post='2215988']
Also, I agree with Cardinal George:

“No matter the issue, Catholics should be able to worship in peace, without fear of harassment,” he continued. “An open display of prejudice against the Catholic Church because of resentment of Church teachings prejudices civil discourse in our society.”
[/quote]
And citizens of the United States should be able to exercise their right to free speech and peaceful protest without Catholics claiming persecution every time someone criticizes them.

Funny thing is, the Vatican is over there in Europe. This is the U.S. People can believe and practice what they want. If you want strict Catholic practice, I can point you to the nearest International Airport.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1298845526' post='2216212']
Not so much siding with them as having a healthy respect for reality, no matter whose actions conform to it.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Guess as long as those Jack-booted Statist Thugs side with homosexualist activists against those awful conservative Catholics, it's all good.

The claim was that the homosexuals were disrupting religious services, which is against the law in Chicago, but I think we can safely dismiss those Catholics as liars.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1298778402' post='2216003']
Gays were within 150 ft of a Church a half hour before Mass started???

[size="7"][b]
HOW LONG, OH LORD, MUST YOUR PEOPLE SUFFER!!! HOW LONG, OH LORD, WILL YOU LEAVE THEM TO FEND FOR THEMSELVES IN THIS VALLEY OF TEARS!!!![/b][/size]


Were they? You have provided no evidence that they were. Even if they were the constitutionality of such a law would be in doubt. Had the activists gone INSIDE the Church and harassed Catholics, that would be a wholly different matter. Making it illegal to protest outside a Church is a highly different matter. You don't have a right to barge into an abortion clinic and scream BABY KILLER!!!! at an abortion doctor while he provides an abortion. Peacefully protesting outside of an abortion clinic is a different matter.




Freedom to not have to walk by some gays holding signs or the freedom to peaceful assembly?
[size="7"][b]


[/b][/size]
[/quote]
I can guarantee that if the story involved "right-wing" groups protesting outside a mosque, you and the other bleeding hearts would be singing a totally different tune.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1298848317' post='2216251']
Guess as long as those Jack-booted Statist Thugs side with homosexualist activists against those awful conservative Catholics, it's all good.[/quote]

I don't care which side the Statetroopers are on. The question in this case "what were they told to do," not "for whom were they told to do it?"

[quote]The claim was that the homosexuals were disrupting religious services, which is against the law in Chicago, but I think we can safely dismiss those Catholics as liars.
[/quote]

Didn't see any disruption of religious services. Saw a protest outside a church.

~Sternhauser

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1298849019' post='2216263']
I don't care which side the Statetroopers are on. The question in this case "what were they told to do," not "for whom were they told to do it?"



Didn't see any disruption of religious services. Saw a protest outside a church.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

It is charged that the homosexuals were violating Chicago Municipal Code 8-4-010(j), stating:

"A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
(j) Pickets or demonstrates on a public way within 150 feet of any church, temple, synagogue or other place of worship while services are being conducted and one-half hour before services are to be conducted and one-half hour after services have been concluded, provided that this subsection does not prohibit the peaceful picketing of any church, temple, synagogue or other place of worship involved in a labor dispute."

You have not provided evidence that this law was not in fact being broken. And it appears the police were in fact instructed not to enforce this law.
While no one here may have all the facts, it seems that you're off-hand accusing the Catholics of lying, while giving the other side the benefit of the doubt.
Very peculiar.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Socrates

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1298849435' post='2216269']
It is charged that the homosexuals were violating Chicago Municipal Code 8-4-010(j), stating:

"A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
(j) Pickets or demonstrates on a public way within 150 feet of any church, temple, synagogue or other place of worship while services are being conducted and one-half hour before services are to be conducted and one-half hour after services have been concluded, provided that this subsection does not prohibit the peaceful picketing of any church, temple, synagogue or other place of worship involved in a labor dispute."

You have not provided evidence that this law was not in fact being broken. And it appears the police were in fact instructed not to enforce this law.
While no one here may have all the facts, it seems that you're off-hand accusing the Catholics of lying, while giving the other side the benefit of the doubt.
Very peculiar.
[/quote]

Problem is, the article did not "charge" any such thing. "Disrupting a religious service" is the "crime" of which the article claimed protesters were guilty. I still hold that to be B.S. and poor writing. Nowhere did the article claim that they committed "disorderly conduct" or that the police "were told not to uphold the law [meaning, the alleged statute prohibiting 'disrupting a religious service.]"

~Sternhauser

Edited February 28, 2011 by Sternhauser

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1298851182' post='2216272']
Problem is, the article did not "charge" any such thing. "Disrupting a religious service" is the "crime" of which the article claimed protesters were guilty. I still hold that to be B.S. and poor writing. Nowhere did the article claim that they committed "disorderly conduct" or that the police "were told not to uphold the law [meaning, the alleged statute prohibiting 'disrupting a religious service.]"

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
You are right that the article used some very liberal language to describe the situation. However, here is an alternative article that discusses a bit more into how some parishioners present believed the Mass was disrupted: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7285533

[quote]Picketers may have been without a bullhorn, but parishioners and Holy's Name's pastor say the protesters were close enough to the front doors of the church that the protest disrupted a Valentine's Day mass where couples were renewing their vows.[/quote]

That being said, the real charge should be, of course, disorderly conduct. Of course, I'm sure this is not the first time the media has mis-reported such things. It seems that, perhaps, the other outlets are misinterpreting this claim of disruption as the same as the disorderly conduct.

Interestingly enough, the ABCLocal articles mentions a parishioner who asked the police if the protesters could be moved due to the violation of the ordinance. She earns 10+ bonus points for knowing her city's municipal code.

Edited February 28, 2011 by CatholicCid

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1298847278' post='2216227']They certainly set a precedent when they chose not to enforce the ordinance. They did enforce the ordinance when protesters wanted to protest outside of the Church of Scientology (At least during services). I wonder if people can now protest outside the Church of Scientology in Chicago when a service is in session. Or would they have to be homosexuals in order to do that???[/quote]The precedent was set hundreds of years ago, this is nothing new. But why the City opted to not enforce, simply its lawyers and advocate groups. Good lawyers are a formidable force.[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1298849435' post='2216269']It is charged that the homosexuals were violating Chicago Municipal Code 8-4-010(j), stating:

"A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
(j) Pickets or demonstrates on a public way within 150 feet of any church, temple, synagogue or other place of worship while services are being conducted and one-half hour before services are to be conducted and one-half hour after services have been concluded, provided that this subsection does not prohibit the peaceful picketing of any church, temple, synagogue or other place of worship involved in a labor dispute."

You have not provided evidence that this law was not in fact being broken. And it appears the police were in fact instructed not to enforce this law.
While no one here may have all the facts, it seems that you're off-hand accusing the Catholics of lying, while giving the other side the benefit of the doubt.
Very peculiar.[/quote]Fortunately I am on ignore for you. But its an ORDINANCE, not a law. The gravity of this ordinance sounds no different than not mowing your lawn. Could someone please show me the penalty for this ordinance?

"[i]Off-hand accusing Catholics of lying[/i]"? Could someone show me where this happened?



For anyone who truly thinks these peaceful protesters on public property should of been stopped or possibly arrested... Would you be crying oppression if cities enacted similar ordinances protecting oh say, abortion clinics? What about city hall? Maybe cities could enact free speech zones and require the purchase of insurance before public protest?

Why are so many people defending an ordinance that flies in the face of your civil liberties and freedoms?

Edited February 28, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1298854587' post='2216295']
The precedent was set hundreds of years ago, this is nothing new. But why the City opted to not enforce, simply its lawyers and advocate groups. Good lawyers are a formidable force.Fortunately I am on ignore for you. But its an ORDINANCE, not a law. The gravity of this ordinance sounds no different than not mowing your lawn. Could someone please show me the penalty for this ordinance?
[/quote]
Chicago Municipal Code: A person convicted of disorderly conduct shall be fined not more than $500.00 for each offense.

One would also assume that they would be moved the required distance away from the building.

[quote]For anyone who truly thinks these peaceful protesters on public property should of been stopped or possibly arrested...[/quote]
I don't believe must think they should have been arrested (which is not the penalty), but required to follow the ordinance (protest 150 feet away).

[quote]Why are so many people defending an ordinance that flies in the face of your civil liberties and freedoms? [/quote]
I think the OP article, though flawed, did have one good contribution that responds to your question:
"If the city believed the ordinance was unconstitutional they should either repeal it for everyone, or go to court to get a determination."

Edited February 28, 2011 by CatholicCid

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1298848819' post='2216260']
I can guarantee that if the story involved "right-wing" groups protesting outside a mosque, you and the other bleeding hearts would be singing a totally different tune.
[/quote]


You can guarantee no such thing. If you want to peacefully protest on public property outside of a Mosque you have, in my view, every right to do so.

Would you probably be a twit for doing so? Yep. Guess what the individuals protesting outside of this Church are?























The answer is 'twits'. If you go protest outside a Church to demand the Church hierarchy change it's view on homosexuality, then you are a twit.

Edit: Since we are probing for inconsistencies in other people's views. Who here wants to venture to guess what Socrates would say if police penalized protesters for peacefully demonstrating outside of a Mosque for something Islam teaches? I feel like some speaking with an unpleasant disposition about bleeding hearts, liberal fascism, or enforced political correctness would follow. But maybe I'm wrong.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Hasan

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1298851182' post='2216272']
Problem is, the article did not "charge" any such thing. "Disrupting a religious service" is the "crime" of which the article claimed protesters were guilty. I still hold that to be B.S. and poor writing. Nowhere did the article claim that they committed "disorderly conduct" or that the police "were told not to uphold the law [meaning, the alleged statute prohibiting 'disrupting a religious service.]"

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
The article may have been sloppily reported, but it does appear that the city police were selectively refusing to enforce the ordinance in question regarding this particular protest. (See remarks from CatholicCid.)

[quote name='CatholicCid' timestamp='1298854705' post='2216296']
Chicago Municipal Code: A person convicted of disorderly conduct shall be fined not more than $500.00 for each offense.

One would also assume that they would be moved the required distance away from the building.


I don't believe must think they should have been arrested (which is not the penalty), but required to follow the ordinance (protest 150 feet away).


I think the OP article, though flawed, did have one good contribution that responds to your question:
"If the city believed the ordinance was unconstitutional they should either repeal it for everyone, or go to court to get a determination."
[/quote]
I agree.

Personally I think the line about the ordinance "flying in the face of your civil liberties and freedoms" is nonsense. The constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech does not guarantee that one can speak absolutely whatever one wants absolutely wherever one wants. For instance, freedom of speech does not give me a right to stand in front of your property and scream abuse at you all through the night. The homosexual lobby can say what it wants about the Catholic Church; it can just find some other place to do so.

And I don't think it unreasonable to say that freedom of religion should mean that one should be free to attend the church of one's choice free from harassment going in the door.

But if people really do think the ordinance unconstitutional, they should get it legally repealed through the courts, rather than the city arbitrarily deciding to enforce or not enforce it depending on what the particular protest happens to be.
It doesn't appear the city is really treating all persons as equal under the law.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1298873729' post='2216375']
You can guarantee no such thing. If you want to peacefully protest on public property outside of a Mosque you have, in my view, every right to do so.

Would you probably be a twit for doing so? Yep. Guess what the individuals protesting outside of this Church are? . . .


The answer is 'twits'. If you go protest outside a Church to demand the Church hierarchy change it's view on homosexuality, then you are a twit.

Edit: Since we are probing for inconsistencies in other people's views. Who here wants to venture to guess what Socrates would say if police penalized protesters for peacefully demonstrating outside of a Mosque for something Islam teaches? I feel like some speaking with an unpleasant disposition about bleeding hearts, liberal fascism, or enforced political correctness would follow. But maybe I'm wrong.
[/quote]
I just think the enforcement of the city ordinance should apply equally to all churches and all protesting groups, rather than being enforced for some but not for others.
Personally, I have no problem with the ordinance, and think people legally should be able to attend the church of their choice (or mosque, or synagogue) without harassment.

But in any case, there's no reason the ordinance should be selectively enforced - effectively "you can disobey the ordinance outside the Catholic church, but not the Church of Scientology" or "the gays can protest, but not XYZ other groups."
It seems there's lately been a trend of the "gay" lobby being able to get whatever it wants, without having to follow the same rules as other people.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1298917831' post='2216460']Personally I think the line about the ordinance "flying in the face of your civil liberties and freedoms" is nonsense.[/quote]I suppose you would also defend similar ordinances for abortion clinics, because clearly the courts have ruled that is the freedom of doctors and women.[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1298917831' post='2216460']The constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech does not guarantee that one can speak absolutely whatever one wants absolutely wherever one wants. For instance, freedom of speech does not give me a right to stand in front of your property and scream abuse at you all through the night. The homosexual lobby can say what it wants about the Catholic Church; it can just find some other place to do so.[/quote]Your analogy is fallacious..[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1298917831' post='2216460']And I don't think it unreasonable to say that freedom of religion should mean that one should be free to attend the church of one's choice free from harassment going in the door.[/quote]No indication that anyone was harassed, as the article claims there is the "[i]fear of harassment[/i]". Which the City responded by assigning Peace Officers to oversee and monitor the peaceful protesters on public property not obstructing traffic.[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1298917831' post='2216460']But if people really do think the ordinance unconstitutional, they should get it legally repealed through the courts, rather than the city arbitrarily deciding to enforce or not enforce it depending on what the particular protest happens to be.It doesn't appear the city is really treating all persons as equal under the law.[/quote]Some people don't like free society. Perhaps you would prefer an arrested culture.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[southern california guy]

I think that the protest outside the Catholic church, by the homosexual group, during the Mass was similar to a strike outside of a store. If you saw a group of strikers outside of a store would you be hesitant to shop there? If you saw a group of demonstrators outside of a Catholic church would you be hesitant to go to Mass? I think that at least some people would be. It's one way to put pressure on the Priests so that they will think twice about criticizing homosexuality.