10 hours ago, blaze master said:

There are rumors they are considering charging him under the ku klux klan act of 1871.

😅

If it's good enough for Christians protesting abortion clinics, it's good enough for leftists protesting in churches.

10 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Better read the law. But let's treat them like Jan 6 rioters since you made the comparison.

No — you better read the law, perhaps this time unaided by the clarity of your MAGA and recreational haze. Point out exactly where protesting alone predicates a felony under the FACE Act’, unless, of course, the church was being used to provide abortion services.

Sure, treat the protesters like Jan 6 rioters — who injured cops and led to the deaths of four people. Yeah, call them patriots and give them all pardons.

3 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

No — you better read the law, perhaps this time unaided by the clarity of your MAGA and recreational haze. Point out exactly where protesting alone predicates a felony under the FACE Act’, unless, of course, the church was being used to provide abortion services.

Sure, treat the protesters like Jan 6 rioters — who injured cops and led to the deaths of four people. Yeah, call them patriots and give them all pardons.

Do you support this type of behavior or not?

21 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

No — you better read the law, perhaps this time unaided by the clarity of your MAGA and recreational haze. Point out exactly where protesting alone predicates a felony under the FACE Act’, unless, of course, the church was being used to provide abortion services.

Sure, treat the protesters like Jan 6 rioters — who injured cops and led to the deaths of four people. Yeah, call them patriots and give them all pardons.

Another deliberate leftist conflation, the FACE Act is equal toward abortion clinics and places of worship under the law:

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act), 18 U.S.C. § 248, explicitly protects places of religious worship in addition to reproductive health facilities. This protection was included when the law was enacted in 1994 to safeguard the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. Key Provisions for Places of Religious Worship

The statute prohibits:

- By force, threat of force, or physical obstruction, intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering (or attempting to do so) with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship (subsection (a)(2)).

- Intentionally damaging or destroying (or attempting to do so) the property of a place of religious worship (subsection (a)(3)).

Physical obstruction is defined as rendering ingress/egress impassable or passage unreasonably difficult/hazardous to or from a place of religious worship (subsection (e)(4)).

Interfere with means restricting a person's freedom of movement, and intimidate means placing someone in reasonable apprehension of bodily injury.

These prohibitions apply regardless of viewpoint—peaceful, non-obstructive protest or expressive speech (e.g., picketing outside without blocking access) remains protected by the First Amendment (subsection (d)).

"The Ku Klux Klan Act, the third in a series of increasingly stringent Enforcement Acts, was designed to empower the federal government to protect the civil and political rights of individuals."

Introduced by Republicans, of course.

The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

"The Ku Klux Klan Act, the third in a series of increasingly stringent Enforcement Acts, was designed to empower the federal government to protect the civil and political rights of individuals."

Introduced by Republicans, of course.

The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

The resemblance of the KKK and today’s leftist is quite fascinating, remarkable how little they’ve changed over the decades.

Just now, novacova said:

The resemblance of the KKK and today’s leftist is quite fascinating, remarkable how little they’ve changed over the decades.

20 minutes ago, novacova said:

Another deliberate leftist conflation, the FACE Act is equal toward abortion clinics and places of worship under the law:

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act), 18 U.S.C. § 248, explicitly protects places of religious worship in addition to reproductive health facilities. This protection was included when the law was enacted in 1994 to safeguard the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. Key Provisions for Places of Religious Worship

The statute prohibits:

- By force, threat of force, or physical obstruction, intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering (or attempting to do so) with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship (subsection (a)(2)).

- Intentionally damaging or destroying (or attempting to do so) the property of a place of religious worship (subsection (a)(3)).

Physical obstruction is defined as rendering ingress/egress impassable or passage unreasonably difficult/hazardous to or from a place of religious worship (subsection (e)(4)).

Interfere with means restricting a person's freedom of movement, and intimidate means placing someone in reasonable apprehension of bodily injury.

These prohibitions apply regardless of viewpoint—peaceful, non-obstructive protest or expressive speech (e.g., picketing outside without blocking access) remains protected by the First Amendment (subsection (d)).

Is there any statutory provision that makes protest inside a church unlawful per se, or does liability arise only from separate elements such as force, threat, obstruction, trespass, or disruption defined elsewhere?

This man is a psycho. He needs serious help.

Just now, LosLobo said:

Where is the exact provision where protesting per se breaks the law?

As far as I know, no one has claimed protesting is against the law. Protesting is legal in the same way that shooting is legal.

Do you support this type of behavior or not?

20 hours ago, BLMFem said:

Indeed. And it's totally OK that the killer Jonathan Reed is NOT investigated by any federal agency. Instead, they're investigating the murder victim's wife!

But disrupt a gathering lead by an ICE agent - full investigation!🤣

Hey tough guy, wonder what you would say if they invaded a Mosque? Nothing, because cowards behind keyboards are afraid of those folks.....

What is a documented fact from my experience living in America, is that the left is very, very, very afraid of messing with Islam or Muslim neighborhoods and definitely mosques. They would not dare invade a mosque, because those folks would beat them up six ways from Sunday. But, invade a Christian church with old folks is just fine with those cowards.

Try pulling that stunt in Dearborn MI....trust me, it won't end well for them.

2 minutes ago, Taboo2 said:

Hey tough guy, wonder what you would say if they invaded a Mosque? Nothing, because cowards behind keyboards are afraid of those folks.....

Leftists love to attack Christians and law enforcement officers because they know they are generally safe,

38 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Is there any statutory provision that makes protest inside a church unlawful per se, or does liability arise only from separate elements such as force, threat, obstruction, trespass, or disruption defined elsewhere?

Good grief you have got to be kidding, right? It is not illegal to protest inside a place of worship or an abortion clinic though it’s illegal to trespass, and it is illegal to force, physically obstruct, interfere with or attempt to interfere with which was clearly obvious in the video which wasn’t a protest, it was an agitation ment to intimidate. Though the delusional left are under the spell that laws are variable and don’t apply to them.

4 minutes ago, novacova said:

Good grief you have got to be kidding, right? It is not illegal to protest inside a place of worship or an abortion clinic though it’s illegal to trespass, and it is illegal to force, physically obstruct, interfere with or attempt to interfere with which was clearly obvious in the video which wasn’t a protest, it was an agitation ment to intimidate. Though the delusional left are under the spell that laws are variable and don’t apply to them.

"Protesting" is legal anywhere but abortion clinics.

No need to keep mentioning "ex CNN" as if it adds something of value. It has been almost 3 years since he was terminated by the network because of poor ratings, inappropriate comments and the difficulty in getting guests to appear on his show. He was a prima donna who developed a bloated ego and got a reality check. Now he is trying to reinvent himself and recapture his lost credibility.

Tucker Carlson was terminated by Fox at approximately the same time as Lemon and for far more significant issues. Yet, people do not always preface his introduction with "ex Fox" employee. He too like Lemon developed a deluded sense of self importance and alienated almost everyone at Fox.

1 minute ago, Patong2021 said:

No need to keep mentioning "ex CNN" as if it adds something of value. It has been almost 3 years since he was terminated by the network because of poor ratings, inappropriate comments and the difficulty in getting guests to appear on his show. He was a prima donna who developed a bloated ego and got a reality check. Now he is trying to reinvent himself and recapture his lost credibility.

Tucker Carlson was terminated by Fox at approximately the same time as Lemon and for far more significant issues. Yet, people do not always preface his introduction with "ex Fox" employee. He too like Lemon developed a deluded sense of self importance and alienated almost everyone at Fox.

What did Tucker do that was so terrible?

27 minutes ago, novacova said:

Good grief you have got to be kidding, right? It is not illegal to protest inside a place of worship or an abortion clinic though it’s illegal to trespass, and it is illegal to force, physically obstruct, interfere with or attempt to interfere with which was clearly obvious in the video which wasn’t a protest, it was an agitation ment to intimidate. Though the delusional left are under the spell that laws are variable and don’t apply to them.

If trespass is alleged, how and by whom was consent withdrawn, what notice was given, and who, specifically, refused to leave?

Are your claims of force, obstruction, or interference grounded in identifiable conduct under a named statute, or only in your interpretation of an unspecified video?

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What did Tucker do that was so terrible?

Well, if you had an employee who intentionally caused a massive financial loss, what would you do? Promote him or get rid of him?

Carlson was a major reason why Fox had to pay US $787.5 million in its settlement on the false claims about Dominion voting systems.

Fox News statement on the settlement stated;

"We acknowledge the Court's rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false.................... We had an employee who intentionally fabricated stories and disseminated information that he knew was false (and that caused damage to our reputation and credibility as a news organization) -paraphrased."

He knew his claims were false. The network warned him to stop unless he had evidence. He refused to follow legal advice and ignored the senior managers. Lying has consequences.

2 hours ago, LosLobo said:

No — you better read the law, perhaps this time unaided by the clarity of your MAGA and recreational haze. Point out exactly where protesting alone predicates a felony under the FACE Act’, unless, of course, the church was being used to provide abortion services.

Sure, treat the protesters like Jan 6 rioters — who injured cops and led to the deaths of four people. Yeah, call them patriots and give them all pardons.

Guess you haven't read the law, I suggest you reread the statute if you even know where to find it. I'm glad you agree we should lock them all up with excessive bail until trial, then give them the maximum sentence even when they've had no Prior contact with any law enforcement, and then in 20 years when a Democrat is elected he can pardon them

53 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

"Protesting" is legal anywhere but abortion clinics.

Entering the clinic (a private property) to protest or speak dissent typically involves trespassing first, which is not protected speech. Though if a patient is welcomed into and enters the clinic and decides to do a 180 and voices decent then it certainly isn’t a violation. There is freedom of speech and then there is trespassing. What matters is the letter of the law which is assumed that most Americans understood that definition learning the constitution in grade school.

42 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

If trespass is alleged, how and by whom was consent withdrawn, what notice was given, and who, specifically, refused to leave?

Are your claims of force, obstruction, or interference grounded in identifiable conduct under a named statute, or only in your interpretation of an unspecified video?

Take another read and stop pretending.

9 minutes ago, novacova said:

Take another read and stop pretending.

May I suggest you follow your own counsel — read the law, and stop pretending you know and understand it.

2 hours ago, Taboo2 said:

Hey tough guy, wonder what you would say if they invaded a Mosque? Nothing, because cowards behind keyboards are afraid of those folks.....

2 hours ago, Taboo2 said:

What is a documented fact from my experience living in America, is that the left is very, very, very afraid of messing with Islam or Muslim neighborhoods and definitely mosques. They would not dare invade a mosque, because those folks would beat them up six ways from Sunday. But, invade a Christian church with old folks is just fine with those cowards.

Try pulling that stunt in Dearborn MI....trust me, it won't end well for them.

And exactly who is the keyboard tough guy?😁

But thanks for the heads-up on Dearborn, MI. I see now that it's home to the infamous Dearborn Dumplings militia, with an average member BMI of 61, which amazingly enough corresponds exactly with the average member IQ!🤣

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

May I suggest you follow your own counsel — read the law, and stop pretending you know and understand it.

You non Americans don’t understand US law, so why even bother. The First Amendment does not extend to trespassing private property, the lunatic left mob that trespassed onto the church property can and rightfully should be prosecuted for disorderly conduct, trespassing, infringement on a religious gathering and of course the FACE Act. Basic criminal violations that the criminal left seems to believe that they’re immune to.

1 hour ago, BLMFem said:

And exactly who is the keyboard tough guy?😁

But thanks for the heads-up on Dearborn, MI. I see now that it's home to the infamous Dearborn Dumplings militia, with an average member BMI of 61, which amazingly enough corresponds exactly with the average member IQ!🤣

Certainly looks legal.

Leave Don alone!

9 minutes ago, novacova said:

You non Americans don’t understand US law, so why even bother. The First Amendment does not extend to private property, the lunatic left mob that trespassed onto the church property can and rightfully should be protected for disorderly conduct, trespassing, infringement on a religious gathering and of course the FACE Act. Basic criminal violations that the criminal left seems to believe that they’re immune to.

Does U.S. law apply differently depending on whether the poster is American?

1 hour ago, nick supreme said:

Leave Don alone!

Oh, Nick........

Meanwhile, in other news from Minnesota.