Plaza Fiasco Lessons

[_Yoda]

If this couple was drunk and disrespectful on private property, then the security folks were doing their job.

And if they weren't?

If the couple was not acting in a drunken and disrespectful manner, then the security officers were in the wrong. However, Mak indicated that eyewitness and police reports indicated otherwise.

I do think that the Church is being hypocritical if it's publicity spokesperson is stating that heterosexual and homosexual public displays of affection are treated equally. They clearly are not.

What I don't understand is why the Church cannot just come out and publicly state that there is to be no homosexual public displays if affection tolerated on private Church property. It is within the Church's right to do so, and at least it would be honest.

[Jersey Girl]

Here is a first person account by one of the gay couple arrested:

Written by Derek Jones:
My boyfriend and I were walking home from the Gallivan Center concert series and naturally had to walk down the pedestrian mall (it was a direct path to our house and we have walked it many times together). We were holding hands.

Matt paused to say something to me and hugged and kissed me.
At that moment, several LDS church security guards came up to us and asked us to leave because we were being inappropriate.

Matt moved in closer to me and put his arm around me and asked the security guards loudly “what are we doing wrong?” We were obviously annoyed that they singled us out, especially since we were just passing through and not spending considerable time there. And there were no other people on the easement that we could see.

At this point they said that they wanted us to leave because of the public display of affection and that they do not allow any sorts of public displays of affection on the easement whatsoever. This especially irked the both of us because having walked through on a frequent basis (we often walk to work through there) and every time I have been through there are either marriage ceremonies going on, young Mormon [sic] couples cuddling in front the fountain, hugging, holding hands, etc.

Matt then tried to get them to admit they were singling us out because they just didn’t approve of “gay” public displays of affection, baiting them into revealing their bigotry.

As all this was going on, several more security guards began showing up. I didn’t make an actual count but I would guess about 10 security guards were now surrounding us.

One of the security guards then got in Matt’s face and expressed very forcefully that “we (meaning straight people?) don’t come to your house and make-out on our property.” At this point Matt called him on his [expletive deleted] and mentioned that every time he has been through, he’s seen brides and grooms, couples holding hands on the pavement etc.

The security guards then changed their strategy and went the route of telling us that the easement is privately owned by the church and they can basically kick-out anyone they deem being offensive or inappropriate. This is technically true, but at the time I thought that it was a public easement and they had no rights to kick us out for holding hands (I didn’t really follow the controversy back in 2003 when the City ended up caving into the Mormon Church’s request to make the easement private property).

At this point they then split us up and forced me onto the ground on my stomach. They put my face against the pavement and handcuffed my hands behind my back. They then did a search and took everything out of our pockets.

They did the same to Matt, although he resisted (not violently) and they weren’t able to get him on the ground because he’s a big guy and it took four or five of their guys to get him handcuffed. Matt remembers asking “what are you doing? Why are you doing this?” Then Matt launched into them verbally, telling them that they were hypocrites and did not have the authority to be arresting us.

Matt never threatened them, nor was he ever violent. He even explicitly told them that we were not being violent and that handcuffing was completely unnecessary. Neither of us are violent people. We were just trying to get them to have a civil conversation with us about the real reasons they wanted us to leave.

Matt then asked if what they are doing was legal. The security guards tried to claim that they were the cops. One of them even pulled out a fake badge and said he used to be a cop.

Matt then asked where the real cops were and they then said we could either leave, or they would get the cops. While we waited for the cops to arrive, the security guards kept trying to take pictures of us with their digital cameras. They also tried to accuse us being intoxicated although we were not. I admitted to have A beer at the Gallivan Plaza, but that was hours before.

The cops finally showed up and talked to the church security away from while we still sat in cuffs. The police then escorted off the easement and took off our cuffs. We answered their questions and the one cop tried to shame us by pointing out we had been drinking, at which point Matt said “of course I have been we were at the Gallivan and took the responsible route by walking home.

The cop then dropped that line of attack that [sic].

The cops then issued us both citations for trespassing and let us go.

The last I heard, City Prosecutor Sim Gill said there was not enough evidence to proceed with the tresspassing charge.

Any variance from the official Church account is probably due to you know....

[_maklelan]

If this couple was drunk and disrespectful on private property, then the security folks were doing their job.

And if they weren't?

They've openly admitted to being belligerent when asked to leave the property. They said it was a natural response. The police who dealt with the couple stated in the report that he smelled liquor on the breath of the individual he spoke with and his speech was slurred. I'm afraid that their drunkenness and belligerence is not a fact in this case that is open for debate.

[_Yoda]

Thanks, Mok. I had not read the entire account.

WTF were the guards thinking about handcuffing them?

They were completely out of line.

Those guards were an embarrassment to the Church.

You will find bigotry everywhere, unfortunately.

My feeling is that if the Church is serious about not wanting homosexual public displays of affection on private owned Church property, which is its right, then it should be stated publicly and honestly, and let the chips fall where they may.

[_maklelan]

Here is a first person account by one of the gay couple arrested:

Written by Derek Jones:
My boyfriend and I were walking home from the Gallivan Center concert series and naturally had to walk down the pedestrian mall (it was a direct path to our house and we have walked it many times together). We were holding hands.

Matt paused to say something to me and hugged and kissed me.
At that moment, several LDS church security guards came up to us and asked us to leave because we were being inappropriate.

The security personnel, the Church, and the eyewitness state unequivocally that the couple was told they did not have to leave if they simply refrained from being lewd. Only when they became belligerent did the security personnel tell them they would have to leave. This fits with their SOP (my old roommate worked for church security). Since it's not standard for any security personnel I've ever heard of to ask someone to leave before asking them to stop whatever it is they're doing, this sounds very suspicious. It seems this couple ran into "several LDS church security guards" who collectively didn't know how to do their job. This is easy to account for by asserting that they did it out of bigotry, but that would be pure speculation and it also conflicts with all the other accounts, which fit perfectly with the standards of the church's (and everyone else's for that matter) security personnel. Keep in mind the eyewitness account was made public well before the church's statement, and they match perfectly in the details of the event.

Matt moved in closer to me and put his arm around me and asked the security guards loudly “what are we doing wrong?” We were obviously annoyed that they singled us out, especially since we were just passing through and not spending considerable time there. And there were no other people on the easement that we could see.

If no one else was there, who's attention was he trying to attract by yelling at the guards? It seems anomalous for them to state that no one else was there. This would preclude them being "singled out" (which does not happen if you're alone).

At this point they said that they wanted us to leave because of the public display of affection and that they do not allow any sorts of public displays of affection on the easement whatsoever.

This is either a lie or those security personnel had absolutely no clue whatsoever where they were. That spot happens to be where engagement photos and wedding photos are taken every day. Displays of affection are perpetual, and there's no rule against that. Again, we are being asked to believe the belligerent drunks are telling the truth and several security guards don't seem to know a thing about their jobs. In addition we have to accept that a third part made up facts that happen to coincide perfectly with the church's made up facts and the SOP of the security personnel.

This especially irked the both of us because having walked through on a frequent basis (we often walk to work through there) and every time I have been through there are either marriage ceremonies going on, young Mormon [sic] couples cuddling in front the fountain, hugging, holding hands, etc.

So the assertion is that the security personnel are lying because they're gay and must be discriminated against. Kinda odd that they would suddenly decide to corner this couple and completely lie in order to get them in trouble when nothing has ever been concocted before to entrap innocent passers by.

Matt then tried to get them to admit they were singling us out because they just didn’t approve of “gay” public displays of affection, baiting them into revealing their bigotry.

It's "bating," not "baiting."

As all this was going on, several more security guards began showing up. I didn’t make an actual count but I would guess about 10 security guards were now surrounding us.

One of the security guards then got in Matt’s face and expressed very forcefully that “we (meaning straight people?) don’t come to your house and make-out on our property.”

I have very serious reservations with accepting that the Church's highly trained and highly disciplined security personnel would make such an incredibly inappropriate statement in front of almost a dozen witnesses. Way, way, way out of character, but nothing has been in character yet.

At this point Matt called him on his [expletive deleted] and mentioned that every time he has been through, he’s seen brides and grooms, couples holding hands on the pavement etc.

The security guards then changed their strategy and went the route of telling us that the easement is privately owned by the church and they can basically kick-out anyone they deem being offensive or inappropriate. This is technically true, but at the time I thought that it was a public easement and they had no rights to kick us out for holding hands (I didn’t really follow the controversy back in 2003 when the City ended up caving into the Mormon Church’s request to make the easement private property).

Even though this gentleman's boyfriend was a vocal opponent of the sale of the easement? And you walked through frequently? I find this more than a little difficult to believe.

At this point they then split us up and forced me onto the ground on my stomach. They put my face against the pavement and handcuffed my hands behind my back. They then did a search and took everything out of our pockets.

They did the same to Matt, although he resisted (not violently) and they weren’t able to get him on the ground because he’s a big guy and it took four or five of their guys to get him handcuffed. Matt remembers asking “what are you doing? Why are you doing this?” Then Matt launched into them verbally, telling them that they were hypocrites and did not have the authority to be arresting us.

The police found no indication that anything abusive had occurred during the detaining of the individuals. The security personnel denies anything like that ever happened, but it seems we are to believe that the only people who have any reason at all to be lying here are the professional security personnel, not the belligerent drunks.

Matt never threatened them, nor was he ever violent. He even explicitly told them that we were not being violent and that handcuffing was completely unnecessary. Neither of us are violent people. We were just trying to get them to have a civil conversation with us about the real reasons they wanted us to leave.

The security personnel never reported violence.

Matt then asked if what they are doing was legal. The security guards tried to claim that they were the cops. One of them even pulled out a fake badge and said he used to be a cop.

How does this gentleman know the badge was fake? It appears we are supposed to believe whatever these gentlemen assert, no matter how unlikely it is that they're correct.

Matt then asked where the real cops were and they then said we could either leave, or they would get the cops.

Once they've been detained? No, that's not when they invite people to leave the property. At that point they're required to keep them detained.

While we waited for the cops to arrive, the security guards kept trying to take pictures of us with their digital cameras. They also tried to accuse us being intoxicated although we were not. I admitted to have A beer at the Gallivan Plaza, but that was hours before.

Every DUI ever handed out in this country evidently is the result of one beer. Slurred speech and liquor on one's breath is not what happens hours after one beer. This statement completely conflicts with the police report.

The cops finally showed up and talked to the church security away from while we still sat in cuffs. The police then escorted off the easement and took off our cuffs. We answered their questions and the one cop tried to shame us by pointing out we had been drinking, at which point Matt said “of course I have been we were at the Gallivan and took the responsible route by walking home.

Of course when cops respond to a call of trespassing after a concert at 10:30 at night the only reason they have to address the sobriety of an individual is to "shame" them. Cops don't have any other reason to be concerned with that, after all.

The cop then dropped that line of attack that [sic].

The cops then issued us both citations for trespassing and let us go.

It appears the belligerent drunks did absolutely everything right, but the security personnel and the cops all didn't know the first thing about their professions and kept making mistakes. And we're supposed to believe this in the face of eyewitness testimony that corroborates the church's statement and the police report?

The last I heard, City Prosecutor Sim Gill said there was not enough evidence to proceed with the tresspassing charge.

The arraignment is scheduled for tomorrow. That's where that will be decided.

Any variance from the official Church account is probably due to you know....

[/quote]

Why do you find it unlikely that the gay couple is lying? Is it simply because you will always take the side opposite the church, or do you have a good reason to doubt the eyewitness testimony and the Church's statement?

[_Paul Osborne]

What if a gay couple were to stroll through temple grounds just holding hands? Imagine, two men holding hands! Would temple security try and stop that? What right under the law would they have to do that? It is a public place open to the street. It's not like being in the temple where you check in and show you recommend.

What if two women were strolling through the grounds with arms around around each other? Would they be stopped by security? At some point there is going to be meltdown and I fear the church is going to loose. They might have to close the gates and lock the grounds.

Here come the gays!



Paul O

[_maklelan]

What if a gay couple were to stroll through temple grounds just holding hands? Imagine, two men holding hands! Would temple security try and stop that? What right under the law would they have to do that? It is a public place open to the street. It's not like being in the temple where you check in and show you recommend.

What if two women were strolling through the grounds with arms around around each other? Would they be stopped by security? At some point there is going to be meltdown and I fear the church is going to loose. They might have to close the gates and lock the grounds.

Here come the gays!



Paul O

No, nothing would happen, since neither is particularly uncommon there. Keep in mind the statement Moksha shared states quite clearly that this man and his boyfriend frequently made the trip together. I can't imagine this was the first time they did it holding hands. Why don't we just stick to this situation instead of concocting speculative theories about how vile the church is.

[_Paul Osborne]

No, nothing would happen, since neither is particularly uncommon there.

What happens when it becomes COMMON ground? What if the gays descend upon temple grounds? What's to stop it?

I can see it now, busloads and trainloads of gays are on their way to the Great Salt Lake.

Paul O

[_Paul Osborne]

ABC news
CBS news
NBC news

[_maklelan]

No, nothing would happen, since neither is particularly uncommon there.

What happens when it becomes COMMON ground? What if the gays descend upon temple grounds? What's to stop it?

A general lack of interest. They tried a kiss-in twice and couldn't get it off the ground.

I can see it now, busloads and trainloads of gays are on their way to the Great Salt Lake.

When they could only muster 100-200 people from the city itself in two tries? Doubtful.