Conquer Club

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?

Timminz wrote: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?

EXACTLY!

Timminz wrote: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?

He feels the need to twist it because he wants to feel persecuted. It's as simple as that.

Woodruff wrote:

Timminz wrote: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?

He feels the need to twist it because he wants to feel persecuted. It's as simple as that.

I would say the Conservative Church is gaining recruits by enforcing this "circle the wagons" , "they are all against us" mentality.

i dont agree with how this man responded to the request... if your asked to leave... well then leave.. so simple...

Timminz wrote: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.

jay_a2j wrote:You can't be asked to leave JUST BECAUSE. It's called freedom....

False. Private property. They can decide, for whatever reason they want (or even none at all), that someone is no longer welcome. Simple. As. That.

This is not news. Just some butt-hurt jackass, who can't understand that it doesn't matter why they asked him to leave. What matters is that he refused.

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.

jonesthecurl wrote: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.

Precisely!

They see him trollin', they hatin'.

another example of christian hypocrisy.

Supposed christians are suposed to obey and all yet we cant follow simple rules and laws.
Always trying to make a scene get attention then they try and pawn themselves off as persecuted like woodruff said.

just another reason i am distancing myself from "denominations"

jonesthecurl wrote: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 article wrote: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)

jay_a2j wrote:And Tim, it was a mall!

That's right, a mall. A privately owned place of business. Do you know what supersedes that guy's right to speak? That's right, the fact that he was on someone else's property. No one told him that he couldn't lie to some people about fictional characters. They merely told him he couldn't stay on their property. He would have been completely free to bother people in the street outside the mall, but he was not welcome in the mall at that point in time.

You is a confused.

jay_a2j wrote:

Timminz wrote: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.

Yes, you can, its called "private property". You can be asked to leave anywhere for almost any reason. Even in fully public venues, there are often restrictions having to do with health, safety and the rights of others not to be inflicted with your speech unwillingly (more commonly called "harassment".

jay_a2j wrote: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.

You are half right. It made the news because the religious right will pay close attention to anything they can possibly project as "a threat". Likely this guy went there with the intent of being asked to leave just so he could cause a scene (and yes, people of all stripes do this and its ridiculous in ALL cases).

The Constitution goes both ways, by-the-way. It protects your right to practice and talk about your narrow view of Christianity, but it also protects me from listening to folks like this guy when I choose not to ... AND I would be fully within my rights to tell management that the guy was bothering me, and management would have every right to listen to the customers and ask the guy to leave. They did, he refused... and likely he had that in mind the entire time.

Christians are advised to honor the rules of Caesor, not go out of their way to disobey them..and for very good reason.

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

THORNHEART wrote: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

If the gay guy wasn't sticking to the designated area's, then no, it wouldn't be any different. If it were a bunch of friends standing around and talking in an inappropriate area, then no, it wouldn't be any different.

thats a f*cking joke

jay_a2j wrote:

the article wrote: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?[

This is the part you ignored:

(from about a paragraph past your above quote)
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.

jay_a2j wrote: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)

Newflash, Jay. That is the EXACT argument used by Hari Krishna groups, Jehovah's Witnesses, and yes, political groups of all stripes.

This mall understands that many people are reluctant to say "no" when asked directly like that. BUT, they ALSO understand that those same people will just not come back. The mall wants business. The mall is in the business of keeping as many people happy as possible so they will buy more products. A mall is not a venue for political debate or discussion, unless the mall chooses to be so.

If this were a county park.. AND if there were not already a policy limiting place for such discussions ( of which he was informed, in this case) then there would be a gripe. This was a set-up job, done with the intent of making the mall seem "anit-Christian".

I would not be the least surprised to find he was spurred on by some nice parishoner in his church who just happened to own competing businesses! THAT is the reality of so much so-called "Christian" "discrimination"!

THORNHEART wrote: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

No, because the guy was informed of the policy and warned not to continue.

AND, because this is a business, not a true public space like a tax-payer funded park.

THORNHEART wrote: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

Snatchko? Seriously?

He's fucked.

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

Even as a customer I would have asked him to leave. TH you're being an idiot and you miss the whole point. It doesn't matter what he's talking about, it only matters that people don't want to hear it. I don't see how you could possibly think that the two scenarios are different in our minds.

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

He probably wouldn't be asked to leave because he was gay, no. But if he was bothering customers then they would have every right to ask him to leave their place of business. And if he repeatedly refused to follow the rules laid out to him then he would deserve removal. Same rules apply to someone talking about God. Same rules apply to anyone doing just about anything in a privately owned establishment.

In fact, this story might just outrage me and make me want to tell everyone I meet about it. If I go to the mall and bother customers with the story then I can be rightfully kicked out. So that would be "Man arrested for talking about man arrested for talking about God at CA mall".