Man arrested for talking about God at CA mall

[THORNHEART]

thats ridicolous.

I do not miss the whole point. your not reading what i wrote.

I think the man claims to be a christian. christians are supposed to obey authority and do what is asked of them if it doesn't contradict their beliefs. Therefore he is wrong on multiple accounts.

Now that said...If a man was gay and was asked to leave a mall. There would be a pubic outrage.No question on that and if you disagree you do not live in modern society.

I am merely pointing out a discrepancy in our system. Some said the hardcore right is only trying to make this a big deal i say that if the guy had been kicked out for giving out gay liturature the left would be going crazy over his rights.

i think sully is semi correct but the true point comes down to people have an intense Godphobia. Yeah a phobia kinda like homophobia just thats its a fear of god not gay men.

Belief in God is a choice just like anything else...what are people afraid of. Those people in the mall have every right to walk or listen...but the fact that the mall feels the need to kick a guy out over his belief in a higher power is kinda funny. I do understand he was breaking their policy of something...BUT seriously...sully says they probaly wouldnt kick the gay guy out or someone talking of aliens he believes in so why discriminate against god is god that posionous an idea?

[jay_a2j]

I already said i dont think the guy was smart but...

For the free speaking benifit and also for the morons talking about how he wouldnt be on the news expect its god he was talking about

What if the guy had been GAY and was trying to talk to some people about how that was ok and he was asked to leave. You morons think there wouldnt be a huge news story on the guy losing his free speach rights? you guys are so blind. the ones bashing the christian here would be the ones deffending the gay guy

EXACTLY!


"Pointing out no one has ever complained of his activities at the mall, Snatchko told WND the guard demanded he leave because he was "walking around and talking to people.""


You jest! He was "walking around talking to people"!!!!! How dare he! So I suppose someone walking around with a "gay pride" T-shirt on or TALKING about gay pride should be asked to leave if ANYONE finds this offensive???? THIS is the logic you people are using! And what's good for the goose....

The people who were so reluctant to say, "no, I don't want to hear it" had EVERY RIGHT to say that and WALK AWAY. It's called freedom. Freedom to speak and freedom to NOT LISTEN. It is a sad day this has to be explained.

[thegreekdog]

Two things:

(1) You guys (and by you guys, we all know who we mean) are weird and borderline insane. There's nothing wrong with what the store did. Pimp will remember that there was a preacher at our college campus that used to stand and wail about sluts (I believe he called my girlfriend a slut on more than one occasion... he was right... anyway...)

(2) Player, the Constitution does not protect people from hearing speech that has to do with religion.

[jay_a2j]

Two things:

(1) You guys (and by you guys, we all know who we mean) are weird and borderline insane. There's nothing wrong with what the store did. Pimp will remember that there was a preacher at our college campus that used to stand and wail about sluts (I believe he called my girlfriend a slut on more than one occasion... he was right... anyway...)

The difference: one is slanderous and the other is not.

[thegreekdog]

Two things:

(1) You guys (and by you guys, we all know who we mean) are weird and borderline insane. There's nothing wrong with what the store did. Pimp will remember that there was a preacher at our college campus that used to stand and wail about sluts (I believe he called my girlfriend a slut on more than one occasion... he was right... anyway...)

The difference: one is slanderous and the other is not.

Hmm... that's not why the preacher was removed. He was removed because he was making people uncomfortable on private property.

Speaking of religious conversion, when I was working the checkout counter at a supermarket back in the day, one of my customer's tried to convert me to his brand of Christianity. When I indicated that I was Catholic he started to yell at me about papists and the like; my manager had to ask him to leave. Pretty awesome.

[jay_a2j]

Hmm... that's not why the preacher was removed. He was removed because he was making people uncomfortable on private property.

And thus a "gay" person can most indeed make someone "uncomfortable" walking around a mall. And thus should be kicked out of the mall by your logic.

[Aradhus]

Two things:

(1) You guys (and by you guys, we all know who we mean) are weird and borderline insane. There's nothing wrong with what the store did. Pimp will remember that there was a preacher at our college campus that used to stand and wail about sluts (I believe he called my girlfriend a slut on more than one occasion... he was right... anyway...)

The difference: one is slanderous and the other is not.

Hmm... that's not why the preacher was removed. He was removed because he was making people uncomfortable on private property.

Speaking of religious conversion, when I was working the checkout counter at a supermarket back in the day, one of my customer's tried to convert me to his brand of Christianity. When I indicated that I was Catholic he started to yell at me about papists and the like; my manager had to ask him to leave. Pretty awesome.

You are catholic, or you were catholic?

[PLAYER57832]

(2) Player, the Constitution does not protect people from hearing speech that has to do with religion.

Depends on the circumstances. You have no right to stop me from preaching on most sidewalks (the city might if its a safety issue), other places where I am free to go. However, when the situation is less free then I do have the right not to have to listen in many cases (not all.. depends). Example: that guy might have been OK preaching in the quad, but if he were your instructor in class and the preaching were not part of the curriculum, then it would not be appropriate and he could be censored.

But my point is that the business is not obligated to allow him to preach if they feel it will create a less attractive environment for their customers. And yes, I would agree if the issue were homosexuality or a positive image of Sarah Pallin. I judge precisely by putting myself in the position of hearing something I dislike or just don't believe and then use that.

The real key here is that the guy had been told several times where and how he could perform this activity, if he wished.

I am NOT saying that I like or even agree with the mall position, by-the-way. I am simply saying they have the right to act the way they did, if they feel it is in their self-interest.

Ironically enough, the same laws that protect this mall also will be used by Christian stores to prevent those opposed from preaching their opposition the the views of the store.

[natty dread]

And thus a "gay" person can most indeed make someone "uncomfortable" walking around a mall. And thus should be kicked out of the mall by your logic.

Your logic is flawed.

A gay person who would be doing nothing but "being gay" would not be the same as a religious nut who was bothering people. Being gay is not something one who is gay can help. He can't choose "not being gay". However a religious person that walks around bothering people that do not wish to be bothered does have a choice, he can choose to not push his god-dope to people that want nothing to do with it.

My point being here, there is a huge difference between a person making others uncomfortable by what he is and a person making others uncomfortable by what he does.

[radiojake]

I already said i dont think the guy was smart but...

For the free speaking benifit and also for the morons talking about how he wouldnt be on the news expect its god he was talking about

What if the guy had been GAY and was trying to talk to some people about how that was ok and he was asked to leave. You morons think there wouldnt be a huge news story on the guy losing his free speach rights? you guys are so blind. the ones bashing the christian here would be the ones deffending the gay guy

EXACTLY!

Good to see you have got back up from all of the bright minds on the Monkey Business board, Jay -

Don't preachers have that place called a 'Church' to talk all of their God and Hey-Sus topics... and if people want to listen to said rant, they are welcome in the various churches around the place -

This article is such a non-issue, it's hilarious

[Woodruff]

I already said i dont think the guy was smart but...

For the free speaking benifit and also for the morons talking about how he wouldnt be on the news expect its god he was talking about

What if the guy had been GAY and was trying to talk to some people about how that was ok and he was asked to leave. You morons think there wouldnt be a huge news story on the guy losing his free speach rights? you guys are so blind. the ones bashing the christian here would be the ones deffending the gay guy

i will submit this agian..if the guy had been gay he wouldnt have been asked to leave

He wouldn't be asked to leave BECAUSE HE'S GAY, no. He'd be asked to leave BECAUSE HE'S ANNOYING CUSTOMERS, just like the idiot religious guy.

[Neoteny]

And thus a "gay" person can most indeed make someone "uncomfortable" walking around a mall. And thus should be kicked out of the mall by your logic.

Your logic is flawed.

A gay person who would be doing nothing but "being gay" would not be the same as a religious nut who was bothering people. Being gay is not something one who is gay can help. He can't choose "not being gay". However a religious person that walks around bothering people that do not wish to be bothered does have a choice, he can choose to not push his god-dope to people that want nothing to do with it.

My point being here, there is a huge difference between a person making others uncomfortable by what he is and a person making others uncomfortable by what he does.

It wasn't who the guy was that was making people uncomfortable, it's what he was doing with himself. If a gay dude started trying to convert people to gay in my local mall, he'd be asked to leave too.

[natty dread]

If a gay dude started trying to convert people to gay in my local mall, he'd be asked to leave too.

Yes, because then he would be making the other persons uncomfortable by his actions, just like the god-dude did.

The same applies in reverse. If the religious person was just minding his own business, he couldn't be kicked out simply for being religious. Only when his actions start to bother other people he'll be kicked out.

If a gay person was just minding his own business, he couldn't be kicked out simply for being gay. Only when his actions start to bother other people he'll be kicked out.

See the analogy here?

There is a difference between being and doing.

[Timminz]

Don't worry about it everyone. It's apparent that jay is not interested in knowing the difference between 'being', and 'doing', nor does he seem ready to recognize, or respect the laws regarding private ownership of property. It's not worth the headache of trying to reason with someone so obviously out of touch with reality.

[john9blue]

When you have rules against "bothering people" or "causing a disturbance" or whatnot, it's ALWAYS going to be subjective. People are more likely to be bothered by opinions that they don't agree with (see: this forum). So yeah, maybe they were biased against Christians, but it's their right (as far as I know) to act on the bias and remove him from their property. So Jay, you can't argue for this guy's right to free speech, and then turn around and deny the store the right to their property. Their rights trump his, simple as that.

[natty dread]

When you have rules against "bothering people" or "causing a disturbance" or whatnot, it's ALWAYS going to be subjective.

Of course it is subjective. Being bothered is a subjective experience. Because it is the subject that is getting bothered. Without the subject there can be no botheration.

However they should go by the common consensus: what the majority finds bothering, is off limits. What the majority isn't bothered about, is OK. A business must always listen to the majority of it's customers. Or in some cases the minority, but only if they have the majority of the money.

[Neoteny]

If a gay dude started trying to convert people to gay in my local mall, he'd be asked to leave too.

Yes, because then he would be making the other persons uncomfortable by his actions, just like the god-dude did.

The same applies in reverse. If the religious person was just minding his own business, he couldn't be kicked out simply for being religious. Only when his actions start to bother other people he'll be kicked out.

If a gay person was just minding his own business, he couldn't be kicked out simply for being gay. Only when his actions start to bother other people he'll be kicked out.

See the analogy here?

There is a difference between being and doing.

I wasn't trying to argumentative. I was trying to be complementary.

[thegreekdog]

Hmm... that's not why the preacher was removed. He was removed because he was making people uncomfortable on private property.

And thus a "gay" person can most indeed make someone "uncomfortable" walking around a mall. And thus should be kicked out of the mall by your logic.

Sure.

[AAFitz]

Nice article. I would have given it a slightly different headline though.

"Man Arrested After Refusing To Leave Private Property Upon Request"

He was not arrested for talking about god. He was asked to leave for making customers uncomfortable, and he was arrested for refusing to leave.

God sees the truth. Why do you feel the need to twist it?

Wow, how high is your reading level? He was asked to leave because he was TALKING ABOUT GOD. He was not causing a disturbance, he was having a conversation with patrons who had the freedom to walk away but did not. You can't be asked to leave JUST BECAUSE. It's called freedom and I know in California there are probably less freedoms than other states but we STILL have a Constitution. If this was, as you say, a case where it was just a matter of "refusing to leave" it would never have made the news.


As much as I appreciate you trying to give me the credit for writing this story I must give credit where credit is due. I did not "twist" anything. You seem to have done a pretty good job of it however.

Talking about god is creating a disturbance. It offends some customers, and therefore is bad for business, and therefore gives a store owner every right to ask him to leave. It then gives the police every right to arrest him if he refuses.

If I come to your lawn and preach something you disagree with, like the reality of evolution and nearly every aspect of say...science... I may very well be correct, but you can still ask me to leave, or have me arrested if I refuse.

[jonesthecurl]

If he'd been trying to sell double-glazing, or asking for a handout, or giving out flyers for a new club, or shaking a charity tin, he'd have been asked to leave.
He was bothering shoppers in a non-bothering area, and was repeatedly asked to stop.
That's what it says in the article.
The fact that he was God-bothering is neither here nor there.

????????????????????????????

The women gave Snatchko permission to broach the subject, but a nearby store employee said they "looked nervous," so he ordered the evangelist to leave.

Now what part of that don't you understand?



And Tim, it was a mall! Maybe you long to live in a country that infringes on your right to speak but most Americans don't. Wonder if you'd feel the same way if he was talking about Obama instead of God. (No, it's not one in the same)

Court documents claim that Westfield’s policy simply limits activities that have a "political, religious or other noncommercial purpose" to designated areas within the mall, in order to "minimize congestion." Speakers must submit a written application at least four days in advance. Access to the designated areas is then awarded on a "first come, first selected" basis.

Westfield argues in the court documents that mall security guards warned Snatchko on a number of occasions that he was violating the mall's Courtesy Guidelines by discussing religion with strangers. During one of his visits, guards even gave him a copy of the guidelines, but Snatchko continued striking up the same conversations without applying for a permit or sticking to the designated areas.

"By roaming the mall and randomly approaching other mall visitors, plaintiff effectively circumvents any attempt by Westfield to reasonably regulate his expressive activities in the mall’s common areas," the court document reads.

[AAFitz]

Hmm... that's not why the preacher was removed. He was removed because he was making people uncomfortable on private property.

And thus a "gay" person can most indeed make someone "uncomfortable" walking around a mall. And thus should be kicked out of the mall by your logic.

possibly he could if he was going around and talking to people about it or perhaps harassing them. But your buddy was not kicked out for believing in god... he was asked to leave for preaching about it. The same goes for people of race. Anyone of any race or creed, can walk freely in any mall. However, they are not free to harrass other people in the process, even if it is perhaps say professing that their race is the best for some silly reason. A white person would most certainly be kicked out for violating this as would an asian.

Preaching is harrassment, and to some degree can be considered assembly, which is completely different than just being there.

Also, your same-sex buddies, or budettes could be kicked out for engaging in improper sexual displays, the same way two heterosexuals could be kicked out for inappropriate behavior.

However, no one can be kicked out if they offend someone, if they are not participating in an action that is offensive. That would be discrimination, and would yield a rather hefty pay out. If your preacher was kicked out for believing in God, god help the fool who did it. But in this case, god help anyone ignorant enough not to see the right of a business to ask people harassing customers to leave.

[sully800]

And the other point that I don't think has been brought up: This same preaching scenario could occur and no one in the mall be bothered or uncomfortable in the slightest. If that were to happen, then there would be no reason for the man to stop preaching. In fact if people enjoyed what he had to say the store owners might encourage him to continue and to come back again.

However, they viewed his preaching as a detriment to their businesses and asked him to stop. When he refused to follow the rules he was punished.

[thegreekdog]

Two things:

(1) You guys (and by you guys, we all know who we mean) are weird and borderline insane. There's nothing wrong with what the store did. Pimp will remember that there was a preacher at our college campus that used to stand and wail about sluts (I believe he called my girlfriend a slut on more than one occasion... he was right... anyway...)

The difference: one is slanderous and the other is not.

Hmm... that's not why the preacher was removed. He was removed because he was making people uncomfortable on private property.

Speaking of religious conversion, when I was working the checkout counter at a supermarket back in the day, one of my customer's tried to convert me to his brand of Christianity. When I indicated that I was Catholic he started to yell at me about papists and the like; my manager had to ask him to leave. Pretty awesome.

You are catholic, or you were catholic?

Both.

[THORNHEART]

exactly. therfore this should not make news. the only reason it is is because he is a mean hateful christian. who was also being contratry to his own beliefs.

MY opposition is that BECAUSE he is christian he has no rights...but whatever...also being a christian implys telling others so in reality he COULD be a christian in the same way a guy could be gay.

the rules of Being a christian mean telling others so lol in reality he was prevented from being his religion in a certain place.

Do we kick muslims out of malls for wearing their head coverings...some people might be nervous shopping with a hooded person...but we couldn't do that because its their religion...does no one see this?

[AAFitz]

And the other point that I don't think has been brought up: This same preaching scenario could occur and no one in the mall be bothered or uncomfortable in the slightest. If that were to happen, then there would be no reason for the man to stop preaching. In fact if people enjoyed what he had to say the store owners might encourage him to continue and to come back again.

However, they viewed his preaching as a detriment to their businesses and asked him to stop. When he refused to follow the rules he was punished.

Its possible, but still probable that due to safety regulations and possibly even fire codes, that if there were too many people gathered in an inappropriate area of the mall, that even if the people were laughing at genuine humor, and not just...well...you know that they would still have been asked to leave.

If Billy Joel went to the mall and tried to sing, hed be asked to leave, and arrested if he didnt, for the ensuing riot he was causing. It would have nothing to do with the fact that people were offended by the Uptown Girl song. It would simply be against store policy, and he does not have the right to do it. If however, he just wanted to walk through and shop... there is no question he would have that right...though he may still have been asked to leave.