More than just a kiss

Eating tacos in El Paso. Walking across a plaza in Salt Lake. A kiss is just a kiss.

Arresting people or asking them to leave "protects" and "defends" marriage?

Not much of a "marriage" to begin with, if this is the concern of a "church."

http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-8476-kiss-off-a-gay-couple-allegedly-is-cited-for-holding-hands-on-main-street-plaza.html

http://blueinredzion.com/2009/07/basic-civil-rights-v-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-part-2/

A publicity stunt at 11pm on a Thursday night in Downtown Salt Lake? Because that's when all the publicity is out and about?

A man kissing a woman in public = public display of affection.

A man kissing a man in public = a publicity stunt? Only if you are Sacha Baron Cohen filming your next movie. There are more polite ways to encourage people to leave your easement. If the security guards had employed them, there would be no publicity. If you don't want egg on your face, don't throw eggs.

"...just as any other couple would have been..."

Either Kim Farah is lying (that is, she knows that couples frequently kiss in the plaza––many in the context of wedding photos), or she is an idiot. Perhaps the reality is a mixture of the two.

In any case, the plaza is owned by the Church, so if the couple was indeed trespassing (and I'm not really convinced that they were, given the information in the article, but I'm no lawyer) then the Church's action was within their rights. The plaza, however, has a public easement; if this kiss was truly in violation of the terms of that easement, Church security had better be vigorously pursuing and removing anyone who kisses there, straight or gay.

Yeah, the LDS Church traded the city of Salt Lake some facilities for a new community center in exchange for the easement.

They are legally entitled to boot anyone they want from that property.

I have no opinion on this story until I have more facts and BOTH sides of it. And I don't really trust most of the press to handle this objectively since homosexuality is kind of a hip issue for them.

That said, the Salt Lake Tribune has usually done a fairly good job of coverage. Hopefully they at least will handle the issue in a balanced fashion.

I wouldn't put it past the gay couple in question to be pulling a deliberate provocation.

I also wouldn't put it past some blowhard on Temple Square security overreacting to something trivial.

We'll see.

What a stupid situation - and on so many levels.

It would be one thing if people came onto private property - regardless of whose property it is - with the intent of causing trouble. But to have people arrested for essentially kissing in public is stupid beyond measure.

I know, I know. It wasn't the kissing. It was their refusal to leave. But whether it was an actual refusal or simply an argument that ensued after they were scolded and told their behavior was inappropriate is subject to dispute. It's not even a dispute between the LDS Church and the gay community. It's a dispute between some security guard and a couple of guys walking through an open area.

And what were these two guys doing? They were trying to get from Point A to Point B. And what were they doing on "church property?" They were walking. Why? Because the Church has bought up what used to be city property. Are other people "trespassing" when they enter the Plaza, let alone cut through it? No. Why not? Because it's open to the public.

It just wasn't open to a gay couple.

Now, if you're going to boot gays from "church property" because you've built a real-estate empire all over downtown Salt Lake City, don't you think it would make a little sense to train your security so that some tempest in a teapot doesn't end up on the AP all over the world?

The world is awash in security guards. Security guards routinely shoo people off of private property. But recognizing the potential for bad publicity, let alone a lawsuit, security guards are routinely trained in how to do this without creating a media event.

Apparently, this gay couple is smarter than the Plaza guards and their supervisors and their supervisors' supervisors. How high up the chain stupidity surges is anybody's guess, but this situation is clearly unacceptable.

Kissing gay trespassers are not out taking over the world. If Chicken Little is LDS, he needs some training.

I believe that this shows how Legalistic the LDS church has devolved to be (Sad, but nonetheless descriptive). They CLEARLY want to have things BOTH WAYS: public/religious (which coincidently preserves their tax-exempt status) and Private so they can pick & choose who comes & goes and what they're allowed to do...
The LDS 'religion' (loose use of term) is a "Simon Says" organization; as long as one 'does (and Thinks) as we Say', they'll be O.K. However, resentment tends to build up when a 'church' is telling you minute details such as a) size & number of earrings b)how to have sex with yr spouse....c) NO Tattoos, WHITE SHIRTS for men; NO pants (in church) for women, etc.
the Mormons have Mastered the application of 'strain at a gnat and swallow a camel'.

i.e. under current law a church does not have to apply for 501(c)3 status - it has such status automatically. Of course a church or religious organization can lose such status if it doesn't act like a "church" - but due to the First Amendment free exercise clause, churches are given unusual latitude, more so than any other type of organization.

This is reflected in statutory exemptions to several laws. Churches, for example, are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion in employment decisions. Most employers are prohibited from doing so, due to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, an act which has an explicit exemption for religious organizations - to pass constituional muster in this case.

Guy Noir,

Maybe this is an unreasonable request, it being the internet and all, but could you maybe leaven your polemic with some facts? I don't even ask that they be pertinent to the discussion at hand.

The LDS 'religion' (loose use of term)

And how, exactly, is the LDS church less a religion than any other one in the entire world? (Hint: Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it less of a religion. You're welcome.)

is a "Simon Says" organization; as long as one 'does (and Thinks) as we Say', they'll be O.K.

Whereas other religions (which have more claim to the label) are... wait.

a) size & number of earrings

Why yes, they have a dress code for attendees at a private college. Not an injunction against members as a whole. But conflation helps make your case, go for it.

b)how to have sex with yr spouse....

Gee, I've been married to my spouse for sixteen years, and I've never once gotten instructions from the church on how to "do it." I hope I'm not doing it wrong.

c) NO Tattoos, WHITE SHIRTS for men; NO pants (in church) for women, etc.

Tattoos are discouraged. True. Not forbidden; there's a difference between trying to influence behavior and coming down with hellfire-and-damnation edicts, you know.

As for white shirts, all I know is that local leaders can (and have) instruct that those priesthood holders administering the sacrament for the congregation dress to a certain standard. I suppose by your definitions, the Roman Catholic church (priestly vestments) and orthodox Judaism (dress strictures extrapolated from the Mosaic law) are only "religions" in the loosest sense of the word, right?

And I've yet to see ANY woman kicked out out of a meeting for wearing pants. I've only been going consistently for 35+ years, though; I obviously don't know as much about my religion as you do.

the Mormons have Mastered the application of 'strain at a gnat and swallow a camel'.

And you, sir, have not mastered the art of using out-of-context falsehoods for malign purposes. Give it time, though, and I'm sure you'll be a first-class liar in no time!

O/T ... let's watch and see what happens ... I added the link as suggested by the interface, but you won't be able to click on it.

I'll add it again here, and lo and behold ...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/14/753343/-Knock,-Knock,-Anybody-NOM-Anybody-Mormon

"under current law a church does not have to apply for 501(c)3 status - it has such status automatically."

Yup, even "C Street" is filed with the IRS as a "Church".

"Of course a church or religious organization can lose such status if it doesn't act like a "church"

I don't think subsidizing overseas prosyletizing trips is "acting like a Church", nor counselling (aka protecting) the hypocritical adulterers, nor subsidizing their rents.

erm... Everything below my initial paragraph was supposed to be in italics, BTW.