They both say you can't hit a man in the face for filming you, NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE. Are you paying attention now?
The "actual first amendment" is not at all applicable to whether he had first amendment rights? You're fascinating.
Agreed. No one said he broke a law. Simply that he had no first amendment right to film there if the church authorities didn't want him to. The church has authority as to whether someone can film within the church.
Taking it further, the laws that excuse churches from paying taxes clearly violate the separation of church and state.
Most posts on this board fit that description, because you're avoiding the issue as usual. It's certainly relevant to the video, the thread title, and the actions of the church thugs. Just because your mind wanders aimlessly doesn't mean those who don't follow are in error.
You didn't corner me, though. If you have a Supreme Court ruling that says that private property like a church is subject to the first amendment, feel free to produce it. If you do, I'll happily admit I was wrong. I made this offer to BGrantFan earlier and he moved on, since I'm guessing this decision doesn't actually exist. Then you should sue and have the Supreme Court rule in your favour.
Quite so, but since you responded directly to me, your response should actually be relevant to what I said.
No, because the first amendment clearly spells out that it, itself, is limited to government. A church is not part of the government.
It's always the guy who's calling other people "fascist" that's the reasonable one. My rage knows no bounds! How dare I quote the Bill of Rights.
Nor does that have anything to do with whether he can film there or not. But keep beating that horse if that's all you've got I guess. The 5th Amendment does not say I can eat breakfast at whatever time I want, but I can anyway.
I responded to your off-topic jibe at me claiming I was off-topic in my response to your off-topic response... My interest in this thread is waning fast...
Sure it is, as are we all. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Abraham Lincoln
The default is that the owners of private property decide the rules on their property. You'll need to find some kind of law that creates an exception here. The first amendment isn't it, since that only applies to government action. It's all I've been discussing or, really, care about in this thread. I don't care a bit about Kitzhaber or who wins the race. I'm sure it has been and will be challenged. Whether the Supreme Court will rule the way you'd like is to be determined. Actually, you responded to one of my posts to BGrantFan. I simply pointed out that your response to me didn't have anything to do with what I said.
In that case, as a government worker, I pay your wages with my taxes. As your boss, I'm going to have to insist that you take a drug test.
In your dreams maybe. Nearly all laws prohibiting anything apply on private property as well as public property. Murder, rape, outdoor burning of trash, growing certain crops, sodomy (in some states), being too loud, parking your RV out front (in some neighborhoods), letting your grass grow over 8" high, installing a non-State-Certified wood stove...
