Paul wrote:What right under the law would they have to do that? It is a public place open to the street.
Technically, Temple Square is owned by the Church. It is private property. Under the law, if the Church wanted to, they could only allow members on the property. It would be a security nightmare, but it could be done.
Mak wrote: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.
Mak--Where is the documentation regarding what the eyewitnesses observed? How much did they observe of the situation? Are they included in any type of article I can refer to? Thanks!
liz3564 wrote:Mak--Where is the documentation regarding what the eyewitnesses observed? How much did they observe of the situation? Are they included in any type of article I can refer to? Thanks!
How funny that these guys try to claim that they were victims. I witnessed the whole thing. First of all, these two gentlemen did much more then hold hands and kiss, they were completely all over each other. Second of all they were given ample opportunities to leave, these security guards told them politely they could stay on this easement as long as they weren’t all over each other. The two men turned things around quickly, they were drunk and completely obnoxious and rude to the security guards, cussing at them and calling them all sorts of names. That’s when they arrested them for trespassing not kissing. Funny how these two “victims” claim to be victimized, when in reality they were just picking a fight, and wanted some attention which they got.
maklelan wrote: A general lack of interest. They tried a kiss-in twice and couldn't get it off the ground. . . .
When they could only muster 100-200 people from the city itself in two tries? Doubtful.
Now come on; you're being silly. They broke up the first kiss-in by calling the police who told them it was private property. The second kiss-in (which many of my straight friends attended) was not bothered by church security (although there were many hot-headed Mormons there--and the Rodriguezes from America Forever too (which I'm sure the LDS church is embarrassed to have on their side).
And why is this seen as such a gay issue? I'm gay, and I think it disgusting how the church used their ecclesiastical power to influence secular elections in the Prop 8 battle, but this case I will not touch. Whether the two men gave an "innocent kiss on the cheek" or were "groping" (whatever that even) DOESN'T MATTER. Main Street Plaza is private property and they can ask anyone to leave for any reason and have them arrested for trespassing if they don't. That's why the gay couple was in the wrong. I have had friends who have gone up to temple square to kiss and get kicked off just to be obnoxious (which is also stupid)....it's nothing new, these guys just made a big stink about it. Most of those angry about this and at the protest may just be angry about Prop 8 or the selling of Main Street Plaza to the church, which are things that can be risen to issue-but this kiss seems like a non-issue to protest over.
hobart wrote:Now come on; you're being silly. They broke up the first kiss-in by calling the police who told them it was private property.
And the protesters were unaware that they would not be allowed free access to the Plaza for a protest? And I'm being silly?
hobart wrote:The second kiss-in (which many of my straight friends attended) was not bothered by church security (although there were many hot-headed Mormons there--and the Rodriguezes from America Forever too (which I'm sure the LDS church is embarrassed to have on their side).
And that one fizzled as well.
hobart wrote:And why is this seen as such a gay issue?
Because the two guys made it a gay issue.
hobart wrote:I'm gay, and I think it disgusting how the church used their ecclesiastical power to influence secular elections in the Prop 8 battle, but this case I will not touch. Whether the two men gave an "innocent kiss on the cheek" or were "groping" (whatever that even) DOESN'T MATTER. Main Street Plaza is private property and they can ask anyone to leave for any reason and have them arrested for trespassing if they don't. That's why the gay couple was in the wrong. I have had friends who have gone up to temple square to kiss and get kicked off just to be obnoxious (which is also stupid)....it's nothing new, these guys just made a big stink about it. Most of those angry about this and at the protest may just be angry about Prop 8 or the selling of Main Street Plaza to the church, which are things that can be risen to issue-but this kiss seems like a non-issue to protest over.
One of the most logical positions on the issue I've seen to date on this board.
maklelan wrote: 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.
In light of this new official stance, perhaps the police will amend the charge to include public intoxication.
moksha wrote:Any variance from the official Church account is probably due to you know....
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?
Actually, I left the last sentence of "Any variance from the official Church account is probably due to you know...." open so the reader could fill in their own conclusion. Is there a reason you have filled in mine with the accusation that I will always take the side opposite of the Church? I have no reason to doubt or support any particular conflicting testimony because I wasn't there. However, I do have the opinion that this would have best been handled by allowing this couple to walk home without saying anything so this whole fiasco would not have occurred.
Technically, Temple Square is owned by the Church. It is private property. Under the law, if the Church wanted to, they could only allow members on the property. It would be a security nightmare, but it could be done.
Yes, I agree. It may come down to that, eventually. Just look what has happened to the airports after 911! If the temple experiences a 911 of sorts there may be big changes coming. I'm not predicting anything but am simply saying a lot of people out there are mad about something and the LDS temple could become a target. Even church leaders could become targets and face serious threats from various radical groups. All it could take is one horrible event on temple square to bring the gates to a squeaky close until Jesus comes again in the clouds of heaven.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Isn't this the sort of nonsense that's supposed to be kept out of the Celestial Forum?
(Moderator Note)Hi, Dan.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have removed the post to a more appropriate forum.
Also, in the future, if you, or anyone else, finds inappropriate comments in a thread, would you mind using the Report Feature? It makes it easier for the Moderators to track. Thanks!
Doctor CamNC4Me, for future reference, the Celestial Forum does not allow personal attacks. It is a G rated forum. The rules are a bit different. I have moved your comment to the Terrestrial Forum. Thanks for your cooperation.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Sorry. I looked for the report feature, and didn't see it. Still don't, as a matter of fact.
Am I looking right at it, and not seeing it?
The bottom right hand corner of each post has an exclamation point icon. Click on that, and it will walk you through the process of reporting the post.
