• 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!

Mayor Forces Man To Leave Public Meeting Because He Won’t Stand During Prayer

brothern said:
The woman literally got third degree burn on her lady parts which required skin grafts and 2 years recovery. Not only that, but it was found in discovery that it was McD's policy to serve their coffee at 180-190 degrees (third degree burns in 2-7 seconds); and that this policy had caused hundreds of previous injuries and out of court settlements against McD's.

It was obvious negligence on McD's part.
Click to expand...


Exactly right. Departing significantly from an established industry standard is classic negligence--there are all sorts of cases on it. The lady in this case was also old and not very sharp mentally. And it's especially bad that the company knew their extra-hot coffee had caused other injuries. As I remember, the judge in that case used remittitur to reduce the damages the jury awarded, so that after the bills had been paid, the poor old lady didn't get all that much.

As to this incident, the jerk almost certainly has a legal right not to take part in the pledge of allegiance. Doesn't mean any decent person should talk to him, though. And it doesn't mean someone might not see fit to catch him outside and adjust his attitude pretty roughly. Anyone who's living here and yet is not willing to pledge his allegiance to this country ought to find some other country to live in.
 
Last edited:
Bob N said:
I don't know of too many stories where people are removed from a room for not standing during a prayer or reciting the "pledge of allegiance."
Click to expand...

I do. This is one. One is too many.
 
RogueWarrior said:
Since when it is frivolous to stand up for your rights as defined in the constitution?
How else are these numbties going to learn?
Click to expand...
Absolutely right.

Suing McDs because you were dumb enough to put a very hot coffee in between your legs and then spilling it is frivolous.
Click to expand...
It seems you are not familiar with the case.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Noted - still frivolous. Hopefully the man has better things to do with his life than clog up the court system with another vanity suit.
Click to expand...
I am curious, where would you draw the line when your rights are violated? Why is it OK to violate one's rights just "a little bit" and just how much should that be?
 
matchlight said:
Exactly right. Departing significantly from an established industry standard is classic negligence--there are all sorts of cases on it. The lady in this case was also old and not very sharp mentally. And it's especially bad that the company knew their extra-hot coffee had caused other injuries. As I remember, the judge in that case used remittitur to reduce the damages the jury awarded, so that after the bills had been paid, the poor old lady didn't get all that much.

As to this incident, the jerk almost certainly has a legal right not to take part in the pledge of allegiance. Doesn't mean any decent person should talk to him, though. And it doesn't mean someone might not see fit to catch him outside and adjust his attitude pretty roughly. Anyone who's living here and yet is not willing to pledge his allegiance to this country ought to find some other country to live in.
Click to expand...

This wasn't the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge starts - "I pledge allegiance". The Pledge the board was reciting started "Father we thank thee".
 
Last edited:
Bob N said:
Mayor orders police to remove man who wouldn't stand for Pledge of Allegiance

I personally believe that Mr. Richardson's First Amendment Rights were infringed upon--especially while being coerced to vacate by an officer.
Click to expand...

Poppycock !

The man, very obviously, intentionally attended the meeting with the narcissistic goal of focusing attention toward himself; exemplifying his own "look at me, I am here to show you how special I believe I am" attitude. The previous statement being evidenced by the man sitting, very prominently where his actions could not be overlooked, in the front row and knowingly filming the situation. The chair of the meeting overlooked the man's disrespectful intolerance toward others during the invocation and then during the next stage of the opening turned that disrespectful intolerance back to individual exhibiting same by asking him to leave until the opening ceremony was completed. He was then cordially escorted from the room.

By what thought processes does one believe he should receive respectful tolerance for his ideals when he does not exhibit same toward others. ( blatant narcissism ? ). His own rude, crude, and socially unacceptable behavior created the situation; and was done so with malice and forethought. He should be embarrassed and ashamed but he probably feels a victory that, in his skewed mindset, allows him to feel offended and put upon. The gentleman' full intent was to cause a problem, while aware of the meeting ritual, refused to extend courtesy to others and initiating this circumstance proved himself to be a self aggrandizing, self indulgent, discourteous, and intolerable ass; that was probably not his goal.

A courteous man, a man not intent upon bringing attention upon himself, would/should have exhibited the same respect he wanted by waiting until the opening was concluded before entering the forum.

Because one may have the 'right' to do something does not always make it the correct action in every circumstance.

Where has simple common courtesy gone ? Does anyone know how to act with a modicum of propriety anymore ? Are people too busy looking for reasons to be offended ?

In this specific event the meeting chair acted appropriately; to have done differently would have been disrespectful toward balance of the forum.

my 2 cents

Thom Paine
 
matchlight said:
Anyone who's living here and yet is not willing to pledge his allegiance to this country ought to find some other country to live in.
Click to expand...
I'm decedent from Donauschwabens from Yugoslavia. They are a German-speaking ethnic minority from southeastern Europe. In Nazi-occupied Yugoslavia they were given a superiority status over ethnic Yugoslavians and were even given authority over an autonomous region. As such, the ethnic group was heavily supportive of fascist Germany and that included many of my older relatives, who even at their deaths still were enthralled with German nationalism. As well as other "pleasant" things.

On principle I gladly reject the demand to pledge allegiance to any country, including this one, and would readily move if it was required of me.
 
brothern said:
On principle I gladly reject the demand to pledge allegiance to any country, including this one, and would readily move if it was required of me.
Click to expand...

The I would image you have no use for citizenship either?

got to ask, if the USA was attacked would you be willing to fight our way of life?

imo, the person should of just stood when everyone else did and say nothing. I can agree that no one should be forced to say the pledge. But a little resepect for those who do say the pledge should be shown.
 
mike2810 said:
The I would image you have no use for citizenship either? got to ask, if the USA was attacked would you be willing to fight our way of life?
Click to expand...
Entirely depends on the situation, but probably not. I'm not a fan of killing.
 
mike2810 said:
The I would image you have no use for citizenship either?

got to ask, if the USA was attacked would you be willing to fight our way of life?

imo, the person should of just stood when everyone else did and say nothing. I can agree that no one should be forced to say the pledge. But a little resepect for those who do say the pledge should be shown.
Click to expand...

I feel sorry for our servicemen, who must know that some percentage of the residents of the U.S. they are running risks to defend are freeloading bums who have no loyalty whatever to the wonderful country they have chose to take up space in. If they all left tomorrow, it would be good riddance.
 
mike2810 said:
The I would image you have no use for citizenship either?

got to ask, if the USA was attacked would you be willing to fight our way of life?

imo, the person should of just stood when everyone else did and say nothing. I can agree that no one should be forced to say the pledge. But a little resepect for those who do say the pledge should be shown.
Click to expand...



:doh Yep. That says it ! I guess My short diatribe could have been considerably condensed :mrgreen:

good day to ya' Mike

Thom Paine
 
shrubnose said:
I totally understand that people in the USA have more freedom of speech than people do in a lot of other countries because we've fought for it in and out of court.
Click to expand...

What's the freedom of speech issue in this scenario?
 
Thom Paine said:
Poppycock !
Click to expand...
Indeed! I agree times two!

Thom Paine said:
The man, very obviously, intentionally attended the meeting with the narcissistic goal of focusing attention toward himself; exemplifying his own "look at me, I am here to show you how special I believe I am" attitude. The previous statement being evidenced by the man sitting, very prominently where his actions could not be overlooked, in the front row and knowingly filming the situation. The chair of the meeting overlooked the man's disrespectful intolerance toward others during the invocation and then during the next stage of the opening turned that disrespectful intolerance back to individual exhibiting same by asking him to leave until the opening ceremony was completed. He was then cordially escorted from the room.
Click to expand...
Lets add another Poppycock for good measure.

Mr. Paine: Mr. Richardson could not have wanted to attend that meeting out of concern for the happenings in his community? Seriously?! Here we have Mr. Richardson sitting quietly with no objections whatsoever about people wishing to pray or recite the "pledge of allegiance" until Mr. Brees makes a spectacle out of Mr. Richardson's quiet rejection to either; a man (Mr. Richardson) that is just interested in his local government and is not prepared to take part in any extracurricular ceremonies (while not making a scene about those that wish to be involved.) and he is intentionally(?) trying his best to disrupt a public meeting by quietly practicing his 1st amendment?! Again, Sir. Poppycock!

Thom Paine said:
His own rude, crude, and socially unacceptable behavior created the situation; and was done so with malice and forethought. He should be embarrassed and ashamed but he probably feels a victory that, in his skewed mindset, allows him to feel offended and put upon. The gentleman' full intent was to cause a problem, while aware of the meeting ritual, refused to extend courtesy to others and initiating this circumstance proved himself to be a self aggrandizing, self indulgent, discourteous, and intolerable ass; that was probably not his goal.
Click to expand...
You need to watch the video again. Mr. Richardson was doing no such a thing (Socially unacceptable behavior? You portray this like Mr. Richardson attended a private church :roll: ) Mr. Richardson was quietly sitting in a public forum. Mr Brees was taking away his right to do so

Thom Paine said:
A courteous man, a man not intent upon bringing attention upon himself, would/should have exhibited the same respect he wanted by waiting until the opening was concluded before entering the forum.
Click to expand...
Mr. Richardson has just as many rights as the rest of those people in that public forum do.

Thom Paine said:
Because one may have the 'right' to do something does not always make it the correct action in every circumstance.
Click to expand...
For Goodness Sakes, Mr. Paine. you act like that was a club or private church Mr. Richardson was sitting in.

Thom Paine said:
Where has simple common courtesy gone ? Does anyone know how to act with a modicum of propriety anymore ? Are people too busy looking for reasons to be offended ?
Click to expand...
If they are, I suspect it was Mr. Richardson that was offended in a public forum and denied his 1st amendment rights.
 
mike2810 said:
The I would image you have no use for citizenship either?

got to ask, if the USA was attacked would you be willing to fight our way of life?

imo, the person should of just stood when everyone else did and say nothing. I can agree that no one should be forced to say the pledge. But a little resepect for those who do say the pledge should be shown.
Click to expand...

He has no obligation to do so, and the "pledge" sounded like a prayer, not the Pledge of Allegiance.
 
Concur...not appropriate. The mayor should get a good scolding at the very least. I dont know that he should apologize for his position but certainly for his actions which were wrong.
 
prometeus said:
I am curious, where would you draw the line when your rights are violated? Why is it OK to violate one's rights just "a little bit" and just how much should that be?
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think I have any more right to offend others than others have to offend me. You notice, in the video, that the Mayor didn't push the issue when the man in the audience declined to rise and participate in the meeting prayer. That was quite reasonable, in my view. The Mayor did take offense, when the pledge of allegiance was about to be recited, and calmly explained that he saw it as a matter of respect for the country and those who served/are serving the country. Since everyone else in the room was apparently willing to rise in support of their country, I don't see that as overly unreasonable.

Now, since you ask me personally, I'll tell you that I don't consider my "right" to sit on my fat ass during opening ceremonies for a meeting to be so unalienable that if prayer and the pledge of allegiance offended me so much I'd just stay outside the room until they were completed and then enter for the meeting. This gentleman, however, in the tradition of the obnoxious, had an axe to grind and decided that his little side show was more important than just being a respectful and cooperative individual. The fact that he was recording the meeting from the start, anticipating the Mayor's reaction/actions, tells me all I need to know about the set-up and purpose of this little circus.

If it were me, and I was suitably offended previously, I would have made a point of registering as a delegation for the meeting and presented my views to the council for them to consider in an adult and respectful manner. If I didn't like the outcome, I could pursue it in the courts if it's that important an issue for me.

All that said, I think the Mayor was more disruptive of the meeting than the gentleman was. If I'd been the Mayor, I would have made my comments about it being respectful to honor your country and left it at that. But to suggest this will lead to a lawsuit and damages is, as I've said, just an indictment of the depths to which some in American society seem to be falling.
 
Last edited:
jimbo said:
This wasn't the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge starts - "I pledge allegiance". The Pledge the board was reciting started "Father we thank thee".
Click to expand...

Actually, if you watch and listen to the video, there was a two part opening ceremony - the opening prayer, which went ahead without the gentleman in the audience standing and then the pledge of allegiance which didn't begin until the gentleman either stood or left.
 
Bob N said:
Indeed! I agree times two!

Lets add another Poppycock for good measure.

Mr. Paine: Mr. Richardson could not have wanted to attend that meeting out of concern for the happenings in his community? Seriously?! Here we have Mr. Richardson sitting quietly with no objections whatsoever about people wishing to pray or recite the "pledge of allegiance" until Mr. Brees makes a spectacle out of Mr. Richardson's quiet rejection to either; a man (Mr. Richardson) that is just interested in his local government and is not prepared to take part in any extracurricular ceremonies (while not making a scene about those that wish to be involved.) and he is intentionally(?) trying his best to disrupt a public meeting by quietly practicing his 1st amendment?! Again, Sir. Poppycock!

You need to watch the video again. Mr. Richardson was doing no such a thing (Socially unacceptable behavior? You portray this like Mr. Richardson attended a private church :roll: ) Mr. Richardson was quietly sitting in a public forum. Mr Brees was taking away his right to do so

Mr. Richardson has just as many rights as the rest of those people in that public forum do.

For Goodness Sakes, Mr. Paine. you act like that was a club or private church Mr. Richardson was sitting in.

If they are, I suspect it was Mr. Richardson that was offended in a public forum and denied his 1st amendment rights.
Click to expand...

Your response indicates you may view the situation differently. I certainly appreciate the courtesy you have extended by your means of voicing that difference.

You are an example of what I speak.

With the anonymity of the forum, you might have chosen to cause a ruckus with vitriolic retorts but you chose to voice your differing view with courtesy.

My comments go to the intent of Mr. Richardson; it appears he attended the meeting with malicious intent. Had he exhibited courtesy toward others, as you chose toward me, He would have waited until the opening agenda was completed before entering the room.

Re-reading your response, it is unlikely I will dissuade you of your view on my commentary so I read it as a sincerely stated view and accept it. It is the proper and courteous (and tolerant) action for me to do so.

Thank you for your pleasant response

The best to you Bob

Thom Paine
 
Manc Skipper said:
He has no obligation to do so, and the "pledge" sounded like a prayer, not the Pledge of Allegiance.
Click to expand...

Didn't say he did have an obligation. Mearly pointed out that just standing up and saying nothing would not have escalated the situation. So your ok showing no respect for those who are ok with the plege/prayer?
 
Thom Paine said:
Your response indicates you may view the situation differently. I certainly appreciate the courtesy you have extended by your means of voicing that difference.

You are an example of what I speak.

With the anonymity of the forum, you might have chosen to cause a ruckus with vitriolic retorts but you chose to voice your differing view with courtesy.
Click to expand...
Thank You.

Thom Paine said:
My comments go to the intent of Mr. Richardson; it appears he attended the meeting with malicious intent. Had he exhibited courtesy toward others, as you chose toward me, He would have waited until the opening agenda was completed before entering the room.
Click to expand...
Mr Paine: I would like to address your description of how Mr. Richardson should have entered the room. Mr. Richardson has every right in the world to be seated at that meeting when people are being let in to sit and leave when it is being concluded no more or less than the way every one else is doing the same.

Anything else differently would be suggesting, in a way, that Mr. Richardson get on a public bus and have to sit in the back because he doesn't pray or recite the "pledge of allegiance"; that was wrong then and it's still wrong now.

Thom Paine said:
Re-reading your response, it is unlikely I will dissuade you of your view on my commentary so I read it as a sincerely stated view and accept it. It is the proper and courteous (and tolerant) action for me to do so.

Thank you for your pleasant response

The best to you Bob

Thom Paine
Click to expand...
Same to you.
 
Bob N said:
Probably why Mr. Richardson was so polite and compliant during his removal. ;)
Click to expand...

I will say, the officer did nothing wrong and I'm very glad Richardson didn't go bananas. He has a legitimate case and his rights have been violated by the mayor in this instance. Hope Richardson carries through with this in the same manner, polite but holding his ground.
 
mike2810 said:
Didn't say he did have an obligation. Mearly pointed out that just standing up and saying nothing would not have escalated the situation. So your ok showing no respect for those who are ok with the plege/prayer?
Click to expand...

Yes, since their prayer was disrespecting his right to sit in a public meeting.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Actually, if you watch and listen to the video, there was a two part opening ceremony - the opening prayer, which went ahead without the gentleman in the audience standing and then the pledge of allegiance which didn't begin until the gentleman either stood or left.
Click to expand...

Yes, we have freedom in this country, and once the mayor made his feelings known, he should have let the rest of the attendees observe what an America-hater looks and acts like, especially when our Flag is involved.

As far as the prayer is concerned though, I have to wonder if the man causing the problem would dare try something like that in the ME - not giving homage to Allah when expected to do so, for instance. I suspect his polite refusal to comply would be viewed quite differently, and I doubt simply being ejected from a meeting would suffice to smooth over the implied insult! Of course we're "civilized," so we should overlook things like that - political correctness is so important! It will be iInteresting to see if a lawsuit is filed.....

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom