Is this not AMERICA anymore...

[jester]

No different than intentional failure to conceal.

[cheezit]

The ordinance proposed a 50 foot bubble zone around the door of any medical facility in Chicago. Within that 50 foot bubble, no one could approach within 8 feet of anyone trying to enter the clinic. Violating the ordinance would result in a $500 ticket.

once again were is the real truth. if he was less the 8' of the door then he was forcing people to go past him. IMO he was most liky not approaching anyone but was forcing people past him wich should be the same violation...... let the court have that one

emmm We must be looking at a differnt version of tress pass. heres what I have.
an unlawful act causing injury to the person, property, or rights of another, committed with force or violence, actual or implied.

impeding the path in to and or next to a door with the sole intent of herassment of patrons of a hospital is/can cause injury
or further injury. Its is the right of the patient to go seek a Dr. and to do so without agravated hassles.

you say he was just saying the " rosary ". and its his right. and it is I wont fight that. There are better places to do so that would not interfere will commerce. So I would viewthe fact he is as that of doing so with force.

he may win, he may lose, he still got to take a ride. It seems I may be the only one that thiks he got his comeup-ins.

[A-R]

I think you need to look at the bubble zone ordinance again and also look up what trespass means.

I never looked it up in the first place. Been speculating the whole time. As far as trespass, I know what it means in Texas. Not a clue what it means in Chicago.

I don't spend much time studying the laws of other countries

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

A simple definition of a trespass is: "an entry to another's property without right or permission." That's the general idea behind both the civil and criminal law of trespass.

The ordinance is below...

A person commits disorderly conduct when (s)he knowingly either:
(1) approaches another person within eight feet of such person, unless
such other person consents, for the purpose of passing a leaflet or
handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or
counseling with such other person in the public way within a radius of 50
feet from any entrance door to a hospital, medical clinic or health care
facility, or
(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally
injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or
interfere with any person entering or leaving any hospital, medical clinic or
health care facility.

[tallmike]

Generally when we see an article about an arrest, and the person who got arrested disagrees with the police report so greatly, the folks on this forum will overwhelmingly say they need more info to pass a judgment.

I guess thats not the way it goes if we want to believe one of our causes is being repressed.

This guy was probably not the quiet, friendly, non-confrontational ambassador of the church that he is making himself out to be.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

There is already a thread running on that...what stance in Chicago do you like?

[cheezit]

wiktionary : trespass :(law) Any of various torts involving interference to another's enjoyment of his property, especially the act of being present on another's land without lawful excuse

it seems that people belive you cant trespass on public land. thats very much incorrect.

"(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally
injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or
interfere with any person entering or leaving any hospital, medical clinic or
health care facility."

The guy is basicly guilty of #2.
All it takes is one person to find the actions to be intimidating, or interfering to the hospital or its patrons. Well someone called it in.

Now lets go back to trespass of land. The city ordinance is law in that city. This law defines the useage of land around a hospital for a 50' area. violating this 50' area aginst the citys ordinance would seen as trespass of land.

now per the ordinance he is guilty of disorderly conduct. this is defined in it.

I think this maybe another one to add to the list. breach of peace

IMO this guy needs some trespass of person and a judge to give him 5-10.

[The Annoyed Man]

Now what?

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/03/ne ... ound-zero/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I disagree with New York, but sure do like Chicago's stance.

You can't have it both ways either. Both are arguably freedom of speech issues. I hate what the leaders of that mosque are doing in New York, but if you research my previous posts on the subject in another thread, you'll see that I also acknowledge their constitutional right to do what they are doing.

You, on the other hand, don't seem to agree with the First Amendment - particularly those parts of it which say:

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.

The interesting thing about it, to me anyway, is that atheism is simply a belief system which cannot be empirically proven any more than can theist religious faiths. But, the First Amendment also protects the right of an atheist to practice atheism just like any other religion. And yet, practitioners of the atheism religion seem to be bent on doing whatever they can to prevent others from being able to practice their religions in the public square - kind of like the more militant aspects of Sharia law - under the misguided notion that they have some kind of constitutional right to not be offended by the religious practices of others.... again, much like militant Sharia.

Another thing that I've observed is that atheists simply cannot understand how millions of people see the existence of a God to be just as self-evident as an atheist sees the absence of any God.

The type of constitutional government we have cannot survive in a predominantly atheist world, unless the atheists are uniquely tolerant of people who hold competing religious faiths. The reason is this: All of our rights as envisioned by the Founders were thought to be God-given. Even when they spoke of natural rights, it was in the context of what they termed "Nature's God." However, if you profess atheism, then you don't believe that our rights are sourced from something bigger than ourselves, and thus our rights must source from the mind of man. If you believe that they source from the mind of man then you believe that they are not inviolable, because truth is all relative, and we are free to refuse to recognize one another's God-given rights (which find their source in Nature's God), and hence free to abuse one another in any way we choose.... because it's all good.

The problem of course is that, since atheists do not see the existence of a deity as self-evident, and in fact place their faith in the believe that the absence of any deity is self-evident, they tend to see people of theist faith as being somehow duped, subject to some variation of foolishness, blindness, and bondage. Conversely, they see themselves as free-thinkers who are intellectually more vigorous than their counterparts. And one of the problems with people who think they are intellectually more vigorous than anyone else (my mother is a prime example of this) is that they feel their intellectual superiority entitles them to condescend to those whom they believe to be their intellectual inferiors.

In support of this, I offer your previous post, #2 at the top of this thread:

Just another nitwit pushing the envelope.

I thought these kind of threads are against forum rules.

Arrogance on display, and it ain't pretty.

[jester]

If requiring people to conceal their handguns in public doesn't infringe the right to keep and bear arms, then requiring someone to conceal their religion in public doesn't prohibit the free exercise thereof.

[The Annoyed Man]

If requiring people to conceal their handguns in public doesn't infringe the right to keep and bear arms, then requiring someone to conceal their religion in public doesn't prohibit the free exercise thereof.

What if you think that requiring guns to be concealed is an infringement? Then your argument doesn't hold water.

[jester]

If requiring people to conceal their handguns in public doesn't infringe the right to keep and bear arms, then requiring someone to conceal their religion in public doesn't prohibit the free exercise thereof.

What if you think that requiring guns to be concealed is an infringement? Then your argument doesn't hold water.

How so? If you think people have the constitutional right to do either openly, that's logically consistent as well.

However, since it's Chicago, it will probably require SCOTUS to overturn, at which point Chicago will pass more anti-religion laws.

[The Annoyed Man]

If requiring people to conceal their handguns in public doesn't infringe the right to keep and bear arms, then requiring someone to conceal their religion in public doesn't prohibit the free exercise thereof.

What if you think that requiring guns to be concealed is an infringement? Then your argument doesn't hold water.

How so? If you think people have the constitutional right to do either openly, that's logically consistent as well.

However, since it's Chicago, it will probably require SCOTUS to overturn, at which point Chicago will pass more anti-religion laws.

You misread my reply. I do believe that requiring weapons to be concealed is an infringement. Reread what I said. I realize that the law doesn't agree with that, and consequently I have a CHL so that I can carry a gun without getting arrested for it. But I still believe that, if the Constitution were correctly interpreted, then it would be legal for me to carry in the open, or concealed, as my conscience saw fit, and it would not be either the government's or your business whether I chose to carry openly, carry concealed, or not carry at all. Thus, I am being consistent with my prior assertions.

However, for your assertions to be consistent, then one who practices the religion of atheism must also be required to keep its practice concealed.

[jester]

However, for your assertions to be consistent, then one who practices the religion of atheism must also be required to keep its practice concealed.

Based on what was quoted from the Chicago law, someone openly preaching atheism outside a Catholic hospital would also be in violation.

And despite Heller and McDonald, someone openly carrying a 1911 would also be arrested.

[The Annoyed Man]

And despite Heller and McDonald, someone openly carrying a 1911 would also be arrested.

Which is why I added the qualifier:

I realize that the law doesn't agree with that ["that" being my view of what infringement means], and consequently I have a CHL so that I can carry a gun without getting arrested for it.