• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Homeowner Jailed for Hosting Bible Study

Okay, well when I read the link I must have missed that. In that case, I stand correctly.

Those links weren't in the OP. The FN story leaves out some details.

But hey, no worries. Unlike other posts, as least yours indicates a willingness to consider new information! :)
 
He wasn't throwing a party

But I've been to plenty of parties where the cops showed up and shut them down

But then, I have a life

But they didn't charge the owner with not having exit signs. Anyway, I read was tessie said.
 
And since it was on his property and he wasn't claiming to be a church, the city was collecting taxes from him. But to address you, one violation is a violation, isn't it? I'm trying to make a point, because frankly I don't care what you do in your house as long as you don't infringe upon my rights. Apparently he wasn't harming anyone.

He wasn't doing it in his house.

But thanks for posting more fiction. This thread needs more fiction
 
No, he decided to ignore the rules, and whine like a ***** about it



I see so those rules apply to anyone that stands up for what they believe in and fights back? Good to know. I'll remember this is your take in future debates.
 
I see so those rules apply to anyone that stands up for what they believe in and fights back? Good to know. I'll remember this is your take in future debates.

He isn't "standing up for what he believes", unless you think that being a criminal is a religion.
 
I know what is reported. My questions probe the posters who agree the man should be jailed because he did not resolve the building code violations. Many of you are very willing to give cities the power to jail its citizens over trivial things. The post you reference was poorly written. My intent was to ask the poster if his believe the city should jail people for administrative violations. They guy did not have the correct exit signs, for example.

I have been on the receiving end of a county bureaucrat who just didn't like"rich" people. What got my attention was the 67 code violations. That sounds like harassment. I want to know from those of you who agree he deserved to be put in jail if that applies to all other administrative violations. Would you expect jail time for someone who has one more pet that the city allows, for example?

And if I want to farm pigs and/or run a port potty cleaning business in my backyard next to YOU, you are saying you wouldn't have a problem with that? How about an adult book store in a 2000 sq ft building in the back of my house? You'd be just peachy with that?
 
He isn't "standing up for what he believes", unless you think that being a criminal is a religion.

His actions were against the law, yes?

There have been many, many people that have stood up against laws they felt were unfair, non-violent that is, and changed them, yes?
 
And since it was on his property and he wasn't claiming to be a church, the city was collecting taxes from him. But to address you, one violation is a violation, isn't it? I'm trying to make a point, because frankly I don't care what you do in your house as long as you don't infringe upon my rights. Apparently he wasn't harming anyone.

The property is titled as a church. There have been no property taxes assessed to the property since 2008 since it is a church.
 
His actions were against the law, yes?

There have been many, many people that have stood up against laws they felt were unfair, non-violent that is, and changed them, yes?

There's nothing non-violent about operating a unsafe public facility, and non-violent protestors don't lie about whether or not they're running a church to avoid paying taxes
 
Last edited:
There's nothing non-violent about operating a unsafe public facility

I thing the thread is about: Homeowner Jailed for Hosting Bible Study


Now we can all go off on one tangent or another to prove a point, but I'll stick to the thread. Thanks.
 
I see so those rules apply to anyone that stands up for what they believe in and fights back? Good to know. I'll remember this is your take in future debates.

Power to the people Down with building codes! :lamo
 
Enough to know that on this topic you don't know your hole from an ass in the ground.


Wow, I'll give you the "deep thinker" and "articulate poster" award. This is so deep I think I'll just let it stand on it's own merit. Good job! :lamo
 
Get your nurse to read you the whole thread, and not just the title, which is a lie. Then get back to us.
 
Well, MLK Jr refused to desist with illegal activities under local ordinances, but they didn't use the methods against him like they are against Salman. Maybe Salman should be killed as the only way to stop his criminally illegal religious meetings? This is a really, really serious matters and he must be stopped. That might be the only way.

You know that over-used sarcasm is very ineffective as a rhetorical tool, don't you? You've still to show any point of comparison between the civil rights movement and whatever this 'pastor' is protesting for or against. I'm pretty sure they haven't called out the state troopers or the lynch mobs on him though.
 
Guy decided to go against the law for his religious beliefs. :applaud

I assume he knew he could be fined/imprisioned/etc. and accepted the fact before he took this action.

He wasn't fined for his beliefs, but for endangering his congregants, upsetting his neighbours and flouting local laws. Which bits of his creed do you think were under attack?
 
It's not the zoning laws that put this on Fox News, it's the "Bible study" thing. "War on Christianity" and other BS.
 
He wasn't fined for his beliefs, but for endangering his congregants, upsetting his neighbours and flouting local laws. Which bits of his creed do you think were under attack?


Did his "congregants" know about the rules/regs/building codes? If so, then they all made a choice to break the law, yes? He made a choice and evidently so did the others. Thus they all stood up for what they believed. Not the first and won't be the last.
 
Did his "congregants" know about the rules/regs/building codes? If so, then they all made a choice to break the law, yes? He made a choice and evidently so did the others. Thus they all stood up for what they believed. Not the first and won't be the last.

Patrons are not legally liable for code violations at the facilities they patronize. It is absolutely asinine to suggest otherwise or somehow try to assume consent through silence.
 
Patrons are not legally liable for code violations at the facilities they patronize. It is absolutely asinine to suggest otherwise or somehow try to assume consent through silence.


So the if folks didn't know the facts of this situation, then the law will add this to the mans other charges.
 
So the if folks didn't know the facts of this situation, then the law will add this to the mans other charges.

As far as I know you don't have to inform the public of all code/safety violations. I think food issues must sometimes be reported depending on the issue, but generally speaking, violations are not public knowledge unless one felt so inclined as to go pull the records.
 
Did his "congregants" know about the rules/regs/building codes? If so, then they all made a choice to break the law, yes? He made a choice and evidently so did the others. Thus they all stood up for what they believed. Not the first and won't be the last.

IOW, you don't know what his congregants knew or didn't know, but you don't let that stop you from dishonestly claiming that his criminal actions were a form of protest and that his congregants "evidently" knew about the code violations.
 
IOW, you don't know what his congregants knew or didn't know, but you don't let that stop you from dishonestly claiming that his criminal actions were a form of protest and that his congregants "evidently" knew about the code violations.


I'm saying the guy knew the rules and yet he chose to break them. He must have known the penalty and evidently expected to pay the penalty. IMO, he did this as a religious protest. He has the right to do so, whether you or I think it's okay or not. No I can not say with authority his parishioners knew or didn't know about the code violations, nor can you, but I would think if they were members then they probably knew the rules/conditions.
 
Back
Top Bottom