This guy/priest was hold Bible study. He fought back because he wanted to continue to hold Bible study in his home/church. Now what would you call it. A cooking class?
He has the right to hold a bible study he does not have the right to break the law. Why would you think holding a "bible study" makes breakign the law acceptable?
This guy/priest was hold Bible study. He fought back because he wanted to continue to hold Bible study in his home/church. Now what would you call it. A cooking class?
No. I'd call it a zoning violation, as did the judge. Owning a residential property allows ONLY its residential use.
Political BIAS . . . . . YES.
It never ceases to amaze me how the right has an endless capacity to see bias against them, while bias in their favor is invisible.
Where, IYO, is the bias for this guy/priest/whatever?
The fact that Fox News saw this as important.
He has the right to hold a bible study he does not have the right to break the law. Why would you think holding a "bible study" makes breakign the law acceptable?
Because the 'law' is infringing upon his right to hold that Bible study.
Nope. Read that part. Posted on that part. Break the law and you pay the price.
Did you hear that the county prosecutor, that sent this guy/priest to jail for 60 days, probation for 3 years and a $12K+ in fines, allowed Occupiers, who caused $200K in damages in the county, and were arrested for felonies go? He claimed they were "patriots".
This sure smacks of political bias and anti-religion to me. Matter of fact it stinks of bias and using the law for political reasons.
BUMP>
Risky Thicket, you want to answer the question?
Hello?
But destroying property is okay anywhere...Awesome.No. I'd call it a zoning violation, as did the judge. Owning a residential property allows ONLY its residential use.
How about Salman infringing upon the property rights of the neighbours? Don't you see a bit of conflict with your philosophy about property rights and religious rights?
Oh yeah, your fallaciously attributed quote may be from Thomas Mother F'in Jefferson but it sure ain't from Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President, no matter how much you wish it were.
I've said over and over and over. The guy broke the law. He should be prosecuted.
But, IMO, he did it for religious reasons.
Because the 'law' is infringing upon his right to hold that Bible study.
I've repeated the "broke the law pay the price" over and over. He should be prosecuted for breaking the law. IMO, he was protesting on the Freedom of Religion count. You don't then you and I will have to just disagree.
But those "occupiers" that caused the damage in the same city to the tune of $200K should have been prosecuted too. BUT . . . . they were "let off" because the SAME prosecutor called the "PATRIOTS".
Political BIAS . . . . . YES.
Every case is different as is each defendant. You probably didn't know that, Billy. You are comparing apples to aardvarks. If you can't see that it is because you don't want to.
Salam is a convicted felon. Salam has been involved in a number of court cases. Salam has a history of being unlawful. Salam is clearly attempting to shuck and jive city and county government and anyone who is just too freaking stupid to believe otherwise.
IYO, my comparisons are not to your liking. The priest/guy made his decision to not put up Exit signs and not make his house/garage/building Handicapped Accessable and was arrested. He evidently weighed his right to his religious beliefs against going to jail for what he believed and chose to break the law and go to jail. He has brass, IMO.
So, IYO, what should have the same prosecutor have done to the occupiers that cost the city $200K? Should he have called the patriots and let them go?
So it was against his relgion to put up exit signs and have handicap accesability?
IYO, my comparisons are not to your liking.
The priest/guy
made his decision to not put up Exit signs and not make his house/garage/building Handicapped Accessable and was arrested.
He evidently weighed his right to his religious beliefs against going to jail for what he believed and chose to break the law and go to jail. He has brass, IMO.
So, IYO, what should have the same prosecutor have done to the occupiers that cost the city $200K? Should he have called the patriots and let them go?
Now doesn't the sound silly, to even to you? Where in the world did you go to pick that out of thin air?
The guy/priest, IMO, did this to protest his religious freedom rights. If you don't agree, then so be it. We see this situation differently.
What gets me is I'm wouldn't even attend this guys group meetings/sermons/whatever, but after beating this 'horse' for days on this thread, I am really starting to see his point.
Not to my liking? Where's the logic in it? What were the violations that Salam and the Occupy people had in common? List them for me please, no one else here has listed and compared the violations, no media source has listed and compared the violations. You certainly have access to information I don't have. The violations Salam committed and for which Occupy committed must be strikingly similar, but I can't find that. In fact, there is nothing to compare, from my perspective. Clue me up.
Preist he ain't. He has never referred to himself as a priest in anything I've read. He did do an online certification class to become a "pastor" of some sort and is now affiliated with the Church of God in Christ, Pentecostal. Salman has claimed there is only God's law. Sounds like the Taliban to me. Nonetheless, he is apparently legally a sky pilot of some sort.
Don't look now, but your willful ignorance is showing. If you are going to argue a position it would be helpful to you if you would acknowledge the known facts. It is clear you haven't read them and don't intend to.
To begin with, he made an application to build a recreation room NOT a church. Later he registered his church at his home address. His 2,000 sq. ft. "recreation room" is used for religious services and he has been avoiding paying taxes as a church, which he said it wasn't, then said it is, but told the city it wasn't, but told the Arizona Corporation Commission it is. There is online documentation of all this and it's already been made available on this thread. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change the fact that it does. Refusing to read it makes one willfully ignorant.
Handicapped accessibility comes under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Now, I don't care what Fox News tells you (and it's obvious that is where you are getting your "facts") churches are exempt from the ADA. Of course you know all that, right?
What did he believe? He believed that he was building a rec room or a church? He has stated legally that he is one or the other. He applied to the city to build a rec room, but he ****ing lied. Now he says he build a church, which he never had permission to build. He receives tax exemption from the State because he used his home address as his church, which he told the city was a recreation room. What religious beliefs is he going to jail for? He has been deceitful and has a history of it as determined by law in previous cases, one involving another church. You know that, right?
He doesn't have brass. He's dumber than a bag of hammers. You have bravery and idiocy confused.
No one is talking about the Occupiers, stop attempting to divert the argument.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?