Just another case of stupid exercising the right to be an ass. Need to be careful with it though, you may get Trumped by the right to protect one's self when you make someone fear for their life.
I am clearly not a lawyer - but I am finding this strange, honestly. The 1st amendment is about the government not being able to limit speech. There is also a concept of separation of state and church. How does limiting one's ability to speak within the confines of a church a 1st amendment issue? It seems to me that it would be a 1st amendment issue if the government stopped him from doing it anywhere - but within the confines of a church which seems like a "private" entity here... strange.
The issue was not really that it occurred in a church, so much as whether or not non-profane speech coupled with what could be considered a profane/vulgar gesture rises to the level of "disorderly conduct" as defined in the Georgia statute. Though an avid churchgoer, I would tend to agree that it does not. The claim that his words "made people fear for their safety" is the pastor/parishioners' attempt to match the statutory definition, and it definitely seems like a reach.
I understand this - the question I have - isn't the church a private organization - so it can dictate what happens on it's premises? I am certain a store will not have an issue throwing someone out for disorderly conduct, why can't the church?
Of course they can throw him out; the ruling was in regard to actually charging him criminally, which the church (of course) cannot dictate.
