Good old Utah

[Niwa Fox Rose]

So, I just read something that really made me quite...Well angry. Apparently two men kissed on LDS church property (Not at a church nor a temple) and supposedly were asked the "inappropriate" behavior and leave. They refused and were actually arrested for trespassing. You can read the article here. http://www.queerty.c...r-man-20090711/

 

I for one think that this was uncalled for. The LDS church states that they weren't singled out because they were gay, and they would have asked any couple kissing to stop. I've been there before more than once, and I've seen lots of straight couples making out. Did the security guards even say anything to them? Nope. Yes, they are legally able to do this but still. I think it's an abuse of power.

 

What do you guys think?

Edited July 14, 2009 by Niwa Fox Rose

[Benji]

So, I just read something that really made me quite...Well angry. Apparently two men kissed on LDS church property (Not at a church nor a temple) and supposedly were asked the "inappropriate" behavior and leave. They refused and were actually arrested for trespassing. You can read the article here. http://www.queerty.c...r-man-20090711/

 

I for one think that this was uncalled for. The LDS church states that they weren't singled out because they were gay, and they would have asked any couple kissing to stop. I've been there before more than once, and I've seen lots of straight couples making out. Did the security guards even say anything to them? Nope. Yes, they are legally able to do this but still. I think it's an abuse of power.

 

What do you guys think?

 

.............The article doesn't make sense, one gave a peck on the other guys cheek, and LDS security DETAINED them. And they were arrested for trespassing????????

[Niwa Fox Rose]

.............The article doesn't make sense, one gave a peck on the other guys cheek, and LDS security DETAINED them. And they were arrested for trespassing????????

 

Apparently. That's why I think (know) that they were singled out. D':

[Kurt]

If they were asked to leave the property, and they refused, then they deserved to be cited for trespassing, because that is exactly what they were doing. Now, the article does not say if the couple refused to leave or not. If they were not asked to leave, and they were just instantly apprehended by the security guards, than yes, it would totally be wrong.

[Krista]

It was the police that cited them for Trespassing, it was probably the ONLY thing they could cite them with. The fault is with the Police officers, not the church. With the church, it is to be expected, so an overreaction, not so much. The police taking it into the higher level was the wrong thing to do. If anything, they should have just been asked to leave, then like Kurt said, if they refused then it wouldn't have been an overreaction by the police.

[Benji]

It was the police that cited them for Trespassing, it was probably the ONLY thing they could cite them with. The fault is with the Police officers, not the church. With the church, it is to be expected, so an overreaction, not so much. The police taking it into the higher level was the wrong thing to do. If anything, they should have just been asked to leave, then like Kurt said, if they refused then it wouldn't have been an overreaction by the police.

 

..........Legal grounds maybe, but would they approach a str8 couple and ask the same?

[Niwa Fox Rose]

If they were asked to leave the property, and they refused, then they deserved to be cited for trespassing, because that is exactly what they were doing. Now, the article does not say if the couple refused to leave or not. If they were not asked to leave, and they were just instantly apprehended by the security guards, than yes, it would totally be wrong.

 

As far as I know, they weren't asked to leave but asked to stop the "inappropriate" behavior. It's when they refused (probably saying "well, you wouldn't do the same for straight couples" or something like that) the security guards called the police.

[Niwa Fox Rose]

It was the police that cited them for Trespassing, it was probably the ONLY thing they could cite them with. The fault is with the Police officers, not the church. With the church, it is to be expected, so an overreaction, not so much. The police taking it into the higher level was the wrong thing to do. If anything, they should have just been asked to leave, then like Kurt said, if they refused then it wouldn't have been an overreaction by the police.

 

It was the LDS security guards that called the police in the first place.

[Krista]

It was the LDS security guards that called the police in the first place.

 

 

So what? I would expect them to, they have the right since it is their property (as stated by the article) to list what they think isn't appropriate for their property. If I thought it wasn't appropriate I would've had them leave too, its a preference. I don't think they were singled out, there isn't any proof to say otherwise in the article. There's not any history surrounding it or it would have been mentioned.

 

It's not an overreaction.

[DragonFire]

So what? I would expect them to, they have the right since it is their property (as stated by the article) to list what they think isn't appropriate for their property. If I thought it wasn't appropriate I would've had them leave too, its a preference. I don't think they were singled out, there isn't any proof to say otherwise in the article. There's not any history surrounding it or it would have been mentioned.

 

It's not an overreaction.

I have to agree, they were asked to leave, they didn't, they were arrested. It certainly doesn't look as though they were singled out, but then I can only go on what was written in the article.

[Rilbur]

I'm sorry, but something that should have been a public sidewalk should not be held under the church's rules. Past that... the article doesn't give anywhere near enough information to judge the situation.

[Benji]

I'm sorry, but something that should have been a public sidewalk should not be held under the church's rules. Past that... the article doesn't give anywhere near enough information to judge the situation.

 

.........Eminent domain issue will be brought up if this isn't dismissed outright, this was a public sidewalk before the city did some sort of land swap. Usually legal language is kept in the deed to allow the public to use the right-of-way, therefore trespassing should be a mute point. Clearly this was a morale issue the church tried to enforce, if they claim that no public displays of affection are allowed on their property. The weddings they hold will have to be stopped, or enforced policy will have to apply to all. It does appear that the gay couple pressed the issue knowing that they were being watched as they strolled down the sidewalk, most likely hand-in-hand and one gave a peck on the cheek to the other in probable defiance.

[Niwa Fox Rose]

So what? I would expect them to, they have the right since it is their property (as stated by the article) to list what they think isn't appropriate for their property. If I thought it wasn't appropriate I would've had them leave too, its a preference. I don't think they were singled out, there isn't any proof to say otherwise in the article. There's not any history surrounding it or it would have been mentioned.

 

It's not an overreaction.

 

Like I've said, I've been to that place lots of times. I've seen lots of straight couples kissing and the security guards did nothing about them. Yes, they were in the legal right to do this. I still think they were singled out because they were gay.

[Niwa Fox Rose]

Okay guys, here's another article. Mind you that this one has a bias as does the one for queerty. I'll try to find the link to the two guy's blog.

 

SALT LAKE CITY -- Two men say they were singled out and treated unfairly by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint because they're gay. Salt Lake City police arrested the two for trespassing when they were asked to leave the Church's Main Street Plaza but refused to do so.

 

On Thursday night, Derek Jones and his boyfriend, Matt, walked through the plaza holding hands. One reportedly kissed the other, and that's when security guards asked them to leave.

 

"We were called at about 10:25 p.m. by LDS security to come over to their property where two males were in custody for refusing to leave the property," explained Salt Lake police Sgt. Robin Snyder said.

 

The couple was cited for trespassing. Snyder says the law allows the owner of a property to kick someone out for any reason.

 

"A property owner has the right to ask someone to leave their property. If they do not leave that property, then they have violated an ordinance, a Salt Lake City ordinance, which is trespassing. So, the police became involved," Snyder said.

 

The Church released a statement saying the couple was "asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior just as any other couple would have been. They became argumentative and used profanity and refused to leave the property. They were arrested and then given a citation for criminal trespass by SLPD."

 

"If this is a public place, such as a park, that's a whole different story," Snyder said.

 

But Jones paints a different picture. In a blog, Jones wrote: "This especially irked the both of us because having walked through on a frequent basis (we often walk to work through there) and every time I have been through there are either marriage ceremonies going on, young Mormon couples cuddling in front the fountain, hugging, holding hands, etc.

 

"Matt then tried to get them to admit they were singling us out because they just didn't approve of 'gay' public displays of affection, baiting them into revealing their bigotry."

 

 

 

 

 

Courtesy of ksl.com

 

 

 

 

Also remember, where they were standing is used for the public as the other article stated.

[Rilbur]

"We were called at about 10:25 p.m. by LDS security to come over to their property where two males were in custody for refusing to leave the property," explained Salt Lake police Sgt. Robin Snyder said.

 

That will be all.

[Benji]

That will be all.

 

...........If they refused to leave the LDS guards were within the law of having them arrested. However the law should be applied to all, and I'm sure scrutiny will follow this site and video cameras will show the true nature of this enforcement.

[Niwa Fox Rose]

...........If they refused to leave the LDS guards were within the law of having them arrested. However the law should be applied to all, and I'm sure scrutiny will follow this site and video cameras will show the true nature of this enforcement.

 

That's where I was getting at. xD

Yes, they were in the right when it comes to the law. However the couple was singled out because they were gay. Which is why I'm complaining. x3

[David McLeod]

Okay, enough! We're going nuts diagnosing a situation based on anecdotal and (potentially) apocryphal information. It's much easier, and more rewarding (if you wish to do so), to bash the LDS church based on their fundamental beliefs than on an isolated incident! Let's hear about Coca-Cola ® and Utah sugar. Let's hear about polygamy and US law. Let's hear about "Nephites" and civil rights. There's a lot more to mine than this!

 

 

[Mark Arbour]

Okay, enough! We're going nuts diagnosing a situation based on anecdotal and (potentially) apocryphal information. It's much easier, and more rewarding (if you wish to do so), to bash the LDS church based on their fundamental beliefs than on an isolated incident! Let's hear about Coca-Cola ® and Utah sugar. Let's hear about polygamy and US law. Let's hear about "Nephites" and civil rights. There's a lot more to mine than this!

 

Coca Cola has links to LDS?

 

No wonder I drink Pepsi.

[Rilbur]

BTW, I was just trying to point out the hilarity of taking a couple into custody (therefore preventing them from leaving) before calling the cops.

[Former Member]

Incidents such as this happen quite frequently. People are asked to leave the property by LDS security, if they don't comply the police are called and they are charged with trespassing.

 

I'm sure the fact that the men were gay is the reason they were singled out. But, many other criteria can and have been used to throw people out.

 

The fight over this particular piece of pavement was quite fierce when it happened between 1998 and 2003. A lot of the public did not want the church to own what was previously a block of downtown in the heart of Salt Lake City. Basically, Main Street (which really has been one of the two main streets through Salt Lake) has now been cut in two by the LDS Church. More info on the fight here http://www.acluutah.org/mainstreetplaza.htm.

[Benji]

Okay, enough! We're going nuts diagnosing a situation based on anecdotal and (potentially) apocryphal information. It's much easier, and more rewarding (if you wish to do so), to bash the LDS church based on their fundamental beliefs than on an isolated incident! Let's hear about Coca-Cola

[Niwa Fox Rose]

Okay, enough! We're going nuts diagnosing a situation based on anecdotal and (potentially) apocryphal information. It's much easier, and more rewarding (if you wish to do so), to bash the LDS church based on their fundamental beliefs than on an isolated incident! Let's hear about Coca-Cola

[Niwa Fox Rose]

BTW, I was just trying to point out the hilarity of taking a couple into custody (therefore preventing them from leaving) before calling the cops.

 

Ooh~ Gotcha.

[Phantom]

There seems to be a lot of what if and biased reporting here, so I can't make a good statement on this. I've seen reports on this, but all from gay sources (I don't remember seeing anything picked up by the mainstream media yet) which is going to be slanted/biased because that's what happens.

 

If they were detained and told to leave for kissing while on church property, then it's within the power of the LDS to say leave and bring up the whole trespassing point. HOWEVER if they were on a sidewalk (which if I remember right is public property, not private) then the LDS church is wrong.

 

Now, I'm gonna go and try to find some more articles on this and give my real opinion on the matter, not just a broad observation.

 

Eric