Conquer Club

Gregrios wrote:It seems to me that buddy should have approached his calling with a little more care and preparation. He should of just stood a foot off the property and preached to people as they left instead of going inside the store where someone according to man's law has ownership over the property. Not that I fault him too much because I'm sure he was going by God's law which gives him the right to speak where ever he wants since the whole of earth is God's and not man's. Once again it simply comes down to perspcective.

So he can go and preach in the middle of a railroad track 'cos it belongs to God?

jay_a2j wrote:
I have "asserted" nothing. So get the plank out of your own eye. Maybe if YOU re-read the post s l o w l y you will be able to see not only that your accusation is absurd but also the hypocrisy of your own words.

Player was pointing out that you assumed the the mall was anti-christian, anti-bush and pro-Obama...
You asserted that they'd be fine with someone praising Obama, since that wouldn't go against their anti-christian values.

When I was a teenager, I went with some friends to celebrate our Second Amendment rights by playing Laser Tag all through the mall.

It was awesome.

However, that mall apparently hates the Second Amendment, lasers, and fun, because they threw us out for causing a disturbance.

Aradhus wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Aradhus wrote:Why? I get why simpletons like Jay and his ilk are, but with you it doesn't quite fit.(with what I know of you from your posts) I have a feeling you're a catholic for completely different reasons than someone like Jay is. With you it has little to do with faith.

You seem to be implying that someone who is intelligent, thoughtful and reasoned cannot possibly be a religious person of faith...why would you believe that to be the case?

People like Jay didn't search for 'the answer' they jumped to their conclusion because they don't know and it fits for him because he doesn't have the brain power to reason anything out. TGD came to his conclusion after reasoning things out(potentially.. possibly..hopefully). Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing, but coming to god after going through the various mechanisms is not retarded(christianity is though, a journeys end, with some faulty cogs, and unconnected dots )

Actually, it's pretty simply with me. I was raised Catholic, so there's that. I also learned a lot about Catholicism, especially it's history, in college; which kind of made it stick with me. The simple part is that I feel better... I guess it's a psychological thing. I feel better when I go to church, I feel better when I pray. I suppose that would be the case whether I was Catholic, Muslim, or Hindu. In any event, the bottom line is that I do have faith, I just don't think everyone should have the same faith (or at least, I don't think my faith should be imposed on others); because, in addition to being Catholic, I'm also American and believe that the Constitution stands for something too.

Oh, guess I misjudged you then.

jonesthecurl wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:
I have "asserted" nothing. So get the plank out of your own eye. Maybe if YOU re-read the post s l o w l y you will be able to see not only that your accusation is absurd but also the hypocrisy of your own words.

Player was pointing out that you assumed the the mall was anti-christian, anti-bush and pro-Obama...
You asserted that they'd be fine with someone praising Obama, since that wouldn't go against their anti-christian values.

well it is california m8...

jonesthecurl wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:
I have "asserted" nothing. So get the plank out of your own eye. Maybe if YOU re-read the post s l o w l y you will be able to see not only that your accusation is absurd but also the hypocrisy of your own words.

Player was pointing out that you assumed the the mall was anti-christian, anti-bush and pro-Obama...
You asserted that they'd be fine with someone praising Obama, since that wouldn't go against their anti-christian values.

Thanks for defending her. But look at all the assumptive dots you had to connect to get there. I never said Obama was anti-Christian yet PLAYER wants to JUDGE me as if I did..... yeah well, judge away! The hypocrisy is astounding!

jay_a2j wrote:Thanks for defending her. But look at all the assumptive dots you had to connect to get there. I never said Obama was anti-Christian yet PLAYER wants to JUDGE me as if I did..... yeah well, judge away! The hypocrisy is astounding!

But you did assume that the mall was anti-christian. You also did assume they would have acted differently if the guy had been preaching for Obama or against Bush. Do you deny this, or did you just decide to conveniently ignore the point?

jay_a2j wrote:If he had been bashing Obama he probably would have been asked to leave also. However if he had been bashing W. Bush they probably would have joined in in the bashing. You have to remember that CA is soooooo liberal that even Army recruiters are banned in some places! So, their "ban on religious and political" talk only applies if it is AGAINST what they believe.

pimpdave wrote:When I was a teenager, I went with some friends to celebrate our Second Amendment rights by playing Laser Tag all through the mall.

It was awesome.

However, that mall apparently hates the Second Amendment, lasers, and fun, because they threw us out for causing a disturbance.

A big three-story type mall would definitely be an excellent place for LazerTag.

jay_a2j wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:
I have "asserted" nothing. So get the plank out of your own eye. Maybe if YOU re-read the post s l o w l y you will be able to see not only that your accusation is absurd but also the hypocrisy of your own words.

Player was pointing out that you assumed the the mall was anti-christian, anti-bush and pro-Obama...
You asserted that they'd be fine with someone praising Obama, since that wouldn't go against their anti-christian values.

Thanks for defending her. But look at all the assumptive dots you had to connect to get there.

What? He didn't make ANY assumptive dots. The only one assuming in this instance is you.

jay_a2j wrote:I never said Obama was anti-Christian yet PLAYER wants to JUDGE me as if I did..... yeah well, judge away! The hypocrisy is astounding!

At least you're not hypocritical. In order to be hypocritical, you'd have to actually be a Christian.

@ woodruffs last comment

This is very simple and straight forward. He was removed from the premises for breaking a rule of the premises. Also, it appears this was not the first time he was warned. Perhaps he should have found another place to continue his crusade. The fact that he was speaking about religion is actually pointless here. He broke the rules and he was removed.

If you can't understand that then perhaps we should all drink and drive and talk about god while we do it.

I was arrested for talking about god!!!

Help, religious persecution happening here!!!

So what I killed a family of 5 while drinking and driving. I was talking about god at the time and they had the audacity to arrest me .

FOX where are you???? Help me!!!

"McReynolds confirmed Snatchko had been given the Courtesy Guidelines prior to his arrest but said the pastor "believed he was complying with them, and that they were being misinterpreted by the security guards who accused him of 'soliticing,' even though he was not selling anything."

McReynolds added that the mall has no right to regulate the kind of speech Snatchko was initiating.

"He’s never pushy, he doesn’t haul out the megaphone or large placards or anything like that -- he just asks people if they mind talking to him about issues of faith,” Snatchko said.

But California-based constitutional attorney Bo Links says the mall's restrictions are appropriate and fall within state guidelines.

"Their rules appear to be content-neutral, reasonable time, place and manner restrictions which are allowed," Links told FoxNews.com. "The fellow who was arrested clearly has free speech rights, and those rights apply to a shopping mall, but they're subject to reasonable regulation such as what the shopping mall seems to have had in place."

"It’s obviously a sensitive issue," he added, "but the shopping mall has a right to protect the people who are leasing stores and make sure there’s order in the marketplace and there was a way for this fellow to proselytize if he wanted to proselytize, he just didn’t want to do it the way the mall set it up."

But constitutional attorney John Eastman says that "to require a permit to even speak about your religious faith to anybody in the mall starts looking like it's unreasonable and might well be UNCONSTITUTIONAL."(emphasis added)

Eastman, a professor at California's Chapman University School of Law, says because Snatchko was seemingly engaged in a private conversation and not a public address, his speech would not have violated mall rules were it not for its content.

"There’s a decent argument that if the mall is not consistently applying this to all kinds of speech but is targeting religious speech or political speech then it is a content-based restriction ... and a content-based restriction like that would be unconstitutional," he told FoxNews.com.


There are some false information being spewed in this thread. The guy was never said to be "preaching" but rather engaged in private conversations. If they are going to prohibit speaking about religion (as many of the underlined statements confirm) then all speech must fall under the same scrutiny. In which case, people in a mall should not be allowed to talk to ANYONE else about ANYTHING. "Excuse me sir, but I saw that you drove up in a Porsche, how good is it on gas?" Man replies, "Security! Have this man arrested, he's talking to me!"

Get a grip.

jay_a2j wrote:"McReynolds confirmed Snatchko had been given the Courtesy Guidelines prior to his arrest but said the pastor "believed he was complying with them, and that they were being misinterpreted by the security guards who accused him of 'soliticing,' even though he was not selling anything."

McReynolds added that the mall has no right to regulate the kind of speech Snatchko was initiating.

"He’s never pushy, he doesn’t haul out the megaphone or large placards or anything like that -- he just asks people if they mind talking to him about issues of faith,” Snatchko said.

But California-based constitutional attorney Bo Links says the mall's restrictions are appropriate and fall within state guidelines.

"Their rules appear to be content-neutral, reasonable time, place and manner restrictions which are allowed," Links told FoxNews.com. "The fellow who was arrested clearly has free speech rights, and those rights apply to a shopping mall, but they're subject to reasonable regulation such as what the shopping mall seems to have had in place."

"It’s obviously a sensitive issue," he added, "but the shopping mall has a right to protect the people who are leasing stores and make sure there’s order in the marketplace and there was a way for this fellow to proselytize if he wanted to proselytize, he just didn’t want to do it the way the mall set it up."

But constitutional attorney John Eastman says that "to require a permit to even speak about your religious faith to anybody in the mall starts looking like it's unreasonable and might well be UNCONSTITUTIONAL."(emphasis added)

Eastman, a professor at California's Chapman University School of Law, says because Snatchko was seemingly engaged in a private conversation and not a public address, his speech would not have violated mall rules were it not for its content.

"There’s a decent argument that if the mall is not consistently applying this to all kinds of speech but is targeting religious speech or political speech then it is a content-based restriction ... and a content-based restriction like that would be unconstitutional," he told FoxNews.com.


There are some false information being spewed in this thread. The guy was never said to be "preaching" but rather engaged in private conversations. If they are going to prohibit speaking about religion (as many of the underlined statements confirm) then all speech must fall under the same scrutiny. In which case, people in a mall should not be allowed to talk to ANYONE else about ANYTHING. "Excuse me sir, but I saw that you drove up in a Porsche, how good is it on gas?" Man replies, "Security! Have this man arrested, he's talking to me!"

Get a grip.

You are a very stupid man. Why is it that a loving God would create such a stupid man as you? You are living proof that your own God is a hateful, spiteful person who clearly has vengeful feelings against everyone associated with you.

jay_a2j wrote:Why would anyone want to live in California?

It's liars like jay_a2j that make me hate religious people. They are the most immoral, corrupt, lying pieces of shit on earth. It is sad that people have to put up with this shit. I hate liars, and religious fanatics are the worst kind of liars.

To whom it may concern,

Let me begin by explaining to you the Constitution. The Constitution is the basis of our nation. In that document, the entire structure of our government is spelled out for us. That document tells the government how to work, how to establish itself, and what it can and cannot do. We the people established this document to govern the government. In order for it to be ratified, a group of people demanded that 10 amendments be added to the constitution, a certain Bill of Rights, that can guarantee the rights of the people.

Amendment 1- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 9- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

This Bill of Rights were amendments to the Constitution, the document that governs government. They limited the power of government. The last 2 amendments are of particular importance because it signifies that in the end, the people have their rights.

The shopping mall is private property. It is not handled by the government, or run by the government, so therefor, the rights remain with the owners of the private property. Regardless of what the Constitution says, the government can't do anything about any of the rules of the private property that do not go against any laws passed by the state or federal government.

The mall had full rights to act in the manner in which it is under the Constitution.

Corno4825 wrote:To whom it may concern,

Let me begin by explaining to you the Constitution. The Constitution is the basis of our nation. In that document, the entire structure of our government is spelled out for us. That document tells the government how to work, how to establish itself, and what it can and cannot do. We the people established this document to govern the government. In order for it to be ratified, a group of people demanded that 10 amendments be added to the constitution, a certain Bill of Rights, that can guarantee the rights of the people.

Amendment 1- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 9- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

This Bill of Rights were amendments to the Constitution, the document that governs government. They limited the power of government. The last 2 amendments are of particular importance because it signifies that in the end, the people have their rights.

The shopping mall is private property. It is not handled by the government, or run by the government, so therefor, the rights remain with the owners of the private property. Regardless of what the Constitution says, the government can't do anything about any of the rules of the private property that do not go against any laws passed by the state or federal government.

The mall had full rights to act in the manner in which it is under the Constitution.

So they (the mall) can do whatever they want because they are not the government? The Constitution/Bill of Rights protects our freedoms it was not written solely for the government. I think when his lawyer says what the mall is doing could be considered "unconstitutional" I'll take his word for it. It's not as cut and dry as the lefties here seem to think it is.

jay_a2j wrote:

Corno4825 wrote:To whom it may concern,

Let me begin by explaining to you the Constitution. The Constitution is the basis of our nation. In that document, the entire structure of our government is spelled out for us. That document tells the government how to work, how to establish itself, and what it can and cannot do. We the people established this document to govern the government. In order for it to be ratified, a group of people demanded that 10 amendments be added to the constitution, a certain Bill of Rights, that can guarantee the rights of the people.

Amendment 1- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 9- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

This Bill of Rights were amendments to the Constitution, the document that governs government. They limited the power of government. The last 2 amendments are of particular importance because it signifies that in the end, the people have their rights.

The shopping mall is private property. It is not handled by the government, or run by the government, so therefor, the rights remain with the owners of the private property. Regardless of what the Constitution says, the government can't do anything about any of the rules of the private property that do not go against any laws passed by the state or federal government.

The mall had full rights to act in the manner in which it is under the Constitution.

So they (the mall) can do whatever they want because they are not the government? The Constitution/Bill of Rights protects our freedoms it was not written solely for the government. I think when his lawyer says what the mall is doing could be considered "unconstitutional" I'll take his word for it. It's not as cut and dry as the lefties here seem to think it is.

Bold- Please reread what I bolded. Especially the Italicized parts.
Underline - Please give me proof of this.
Red- Not all lawyers are right in their interpretation of the Constitution. That is up to the judges.
Green- Actually, not to burst your bubble, but its the Right who see the constitution as cut and dry. They're the ones who believe in personal freedoms and smaller government intervention.

jay_a2j wrote:

Corno4825 wrote:To whom it may concern,

Let me begin by explaining to you the Constitution. The Constitution is the basis of our nation. In that document, the entire structure of our government is spelled out for us. That document tells the government how to work, how to establish itself, and what it can and cannot do. We the people established this document to govern the government. In order for it to be ratified, a group of people demanded that 10 amendments be added to the constitution, a certain Bill of Rights, that can guarantee the rights of the people.

Amendment 1- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 9- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

This Bill of Rights were amendments to the Constitution, the document that governs government. They limited the power of government. The last 2 amendments are of particular importance because it signifies that in the end, the people have their rights.

The shopping mall is private property. It is not handled by the government, or run by the government, so therefor, the rights remain with the owners of the private property. Regardless of what the Constitution says, the government can't do anything about any of the rules of the private property that do not go against any laws passed by the state or federal government.

The mall had full rights to act in the manner in which it is under the Constitution.

So they (the mall) can do whatever they want because they are not the government? The Constitution/Bill of Rights protects our freedoms it was not written solely for the government. I think when his lawyer says what the mall is doing could be considered "unconstitutional" I'll take his word for it. It's not as cut and dry as the lefties here seem to think it is.

You didn't answer my question about how stupid you are. This seems like an appropriate time for me to remind you of it.

jonesthecurl wrote:

Gregrios wrote:It seems to me that buddy should have approached his calling with a little more care and preparation. He should of just stood a foot off the property and preached to people as they left instead of going inside the store where someone according to man's law has ownership over the property. Not that I fault him too much because I'm sure he was going by God's law which gives him the right to speak where ever he wants since the whole of earth is God's and not man's. Once again it simply comes down to perspcective.

So he can go and preach in the middle of a railroad track 'cos it belongs to God?

I could provide you with the meaning of perspective if you like.

The Constitution is written solely for the government. Read it again. Note where it says "Congress shall make no law..." It's pretty cut and dry.

Im sure that Jay the prison guard recognises that all the inmates of his jail have the constitutional right to chat to whoever they wish and at any time. Never mind prison regulations , never mind the fact that the inmate had been warned to desist, it is his absolute right to ignore the guard and carry on talking ........thats correct yes Jay ?

jay_a2j wrote:

Corno4825 wrote:To whom it may concern,

Let me begin by explaining to you the Constitution. The Constitution is the basis of our nation. In that document, the entire structure of our government is spelled out for us. That document tells the government how to work, how to establish itself, and what it can and cannot do. We the people established this document to govern the government. In order for it to be ratified, a group of people demanded that 10 amendments be added to the constitution, a certain Bill of Rights, that can guarantee the rights of the people.

Amendment 1- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 9- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

This Bill of Rights were amendments to the Constitution, the document that governs government. They limited the power of government. The last 2 amendments are of particular importance because it signifies that in the end, the people have their rights.

The shopping mall is private property. It is not handled by the government, or run by the government, so therefor, the rights remain with the owners of the private property. Regardless of what the Constitution says, the government can't do anything about any of the rules of the private property that do not go against any laws passed by the state or federal government.

The mall had full rights to act in the manner in which it is under the Constitution.

So they (the mall) can do whatever they want because they are not the government? The Constitution/Bill of Rights protects our freedoms it was not written solely for the government. I think when his lawyer says what the mall is doing could be considered "unconstitutional" I'll take his word for it. It's not as cut and dry as the lefties here seem to think it is.

Gotcha. I'll just go to the nearest christian church and start preaching about Satanism and ignore any and all requests to leave.

thegreekdog wrote:The Constitution is written solely for the government. Read it again. Note where it says "Congress shall make no law..." It's pretty cut and dry.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the government for the people? I don't know alot about the constitution but it seems to me that by saying that it's written for the government, you'd also be saying it's written for the people.

thegreekdog wrote:The Constitution is written solely for the government. Read it again. Note where it says "Congress shall make no law..." It's pretty cut and dry.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....So if that is ONLY talking about the GOVERNMENT interfering with these things then I guess it's ok to commit murder, enslave our neighbor and force Woody to go to AA meeting. And Freedom of speech apparently only applies if you are in a government building. And the right to keep and bear arms again, only if you are on government property. WOW, you have a very twisted view.

comic boy wrote:Im sure that Jay the prison guard recognises that all the inmates of his jail have the constitutional right to chat to whoever they wish and at any time. Never mind prison regulations , never mind the fact that the inmate had been warned to desist, it is his absolute right to ignore the guard and carry on talking ........thats correct yes Jay ?

Find the nearest wall and do this >>>>>>