Gay couple detained near MORMAN plaza
- Thread starter miraclefan
- Start date
Plecostomus
Commodore
So how was that Star Track movie then?
A
Amaris
Guest
True, and they would have been wiser to simply not do it, but they did, and the Church could have reacted in a reasonable fashion and chose not to do so, so I advocated an unreasonable solution.
J.
Plecostomus
Commodore
I have been informed that in certain situations licensed uniform private security guards can detain people and restrict their movements until the public police arrive.
The situations are narrow and specific and restricted to certain classifications of security guard... like the ones at the Nuclear Power Plant down the road. That's a privately owned utility station, with an armed guard presence that has search-and-seizure powers as well as the authority to detain an individual pending the arrival of the state troopers.
Having been in the temple a few times back when I was "More Serious" about the religious stuff I can assure you that there is NOTHING in there that warrants that sort of security... not even at Salt Lake.
Scoffing at the law for the sake of "causing trouble" ranks rather low in my opinion. The Latter Day Saints church represents less than 30 million people worldwide, so it's not like you are protesting/trying to overthrow a far-reaching repressive regime. We are rather selective about who we let join (if you're not born in) and by all means if you aren't happy please leave.
The situations are narrow and specific and restricted to certain classifications of security guard... like the ones at the Nuclear Power Plant down the road. That's a privately owned utility station, with an armed guard presence that has search-and-seizure powers as well as the authority to detain an individual pending the arrival of the state troopers.
Having been in the temple a few times back when I was "More Serious" about the religious stuff I can assure you that there is NOTHING in there that warrants that sort of security... not even at Salt Lake.
Scoffing at the law for the sake of "causing trouble" ranks rather low in my opinion. The Latter Day Saints church represents less than 30 million people worldwide, so it's not like you are protesting/trying to overthrow a far-reaching repressive regime. We are rather selective about who we let join (if you're not born in) and by all means if you aren't happy please leave.
I think MORMAN is one of the more obscure He-Man figures.
A little background: The piece of property they were on used to be a section of Salt Lake's Main Street. The LDS Church made a deal with the city in the early '00s and bought the section, and turned it into a pedestrian "plaza" which connects Temple Square and another church-owned property. That was not popular with everyone. The public thoroughfares adjacent to Temple Square and the plaza have always been popular with anti-Mormon protesters, especially during the semi-annual General Conference. Since the Prop 8 thing last year, there have been a couple of gay-rights protests and marches in downtown SLC. So, not surprisingly, the church has security agents that take things pretty seriously and are always around. Not much goes down on their property that they don't know about.
I think it's pretty clear that the two guys were being intentionally provocative. How far they went or how blatantly isn't clear yet, but they were trying to stir up some shit. No big deal to me, but it's not my property.
Under Utah law (like many other states) any citizen is allowed to arrest someone who has committed an offense in their presence. In this case, the two gentlemen were given a trespassing warning but refused to leave the property. So the security people detained them and called the police. It is legal to use "reasonable" restraint to detain someone to be turned over to law enforcement. Since the person admitted he was arguing and swearing at the guards, and handcuffs ordinarily cause no serious physical damage, I think he would have a pretty hard time claiming his handcuffing was "unreasonable."
This is not a new situation for the church security guards (a lot of whom are retired peace officers), they know the law and it happens all the time. It happened to Bill Maher. Most people leave the property and that's the end of it. These two didn't, and SLCPD gave them a trespassing citation just like they would on any other private property.
While I definitely support gay rights and same-sex marriage, what happened here isn't really a "rights" issue, except private property rights. They made their "demonstration" on private property, didn't comply with the property owners' requests, and will most likely have to pay a trespassing fine for it. I don't really see why it's become big news, but I guess if they wanted attention they've succeeded.
--Justin
A
Amaris
Guest
The "crime" didn't warrant that kind of reaction from the security guards. They would have been eminently smarter to simply let the one guy give the other a peck on the cheek and let them be on their way. No anger, no resulting attention, no making the Church of Latter Day Saints look like bigots (which whether you agree with them or not, this certainly doesn't help the image of the church).
Eh, sometimes I love a good scoff, particularly if I feel there is an overreaction on the part of said law.
J.
Plecostomus
Commodore
Disagree. Church property was violated. Folks were asked to leave, they made an issue, they were arrested.
Lets not go down this route.
Next thing you'll be saying that the fellow who broke into my home and took my computer was entitled to it, and I had no reason to spray him with bathroom cleaner and hog-tie him pending the arrival of a police officer.
Those who break the law get punished. Even if it is a stupid law. Process exists to change the law without exposing yourself to this sort of process.
Mormons are ridiculous. At least with most religions it's a little harder to see just how obviously made up they are because of a couple of thousand years of history passing since their founding. But Mormons? They're pretty much Scientology without the spaceships as best as I can tell.
Anyway, if the Mormons own some land, and don't want even the tamest of "man on man action" on it, then that's their right.
Anyway, if the Mormons own some land, and don't want even the tamest of "man on man action" on it, then that's their right.
Plecostomus
Commodore
Uh, no. It's a retread of christian belief (bible and all that) but with "modern day" prophecy and a set of "lost scripture" that somehow was found 20 miles from my house by a farm-boy named Joseph.
...But I like that "Scientology without the spaceships" bit!
I'll use that on the Jehovah's when they show up next time. That's what this whole thing boils down to. Private property. Not gay rights, not excessive use of force, nothing else.
A
Amaris
Guest
Church property was violated when one guy kissed another one on the cheek.
Well, sure, but only if you want to go down an extreme and hyperbolic path of self serving, one sided, facetious straw men, but I don't think you do.
Oh, I agree that they shouldn't have done it knowing it would make the church overreact, and the church overreacted. They didn't use their heads. So they decided to enforce a little zero tolerance instead of dealing with these people as thinking human beings, and they stepped in it. The law breaking was on the two guys (as ridiculously inane that law is), but the stupid overreaching, that one's on the security guards, and by proxy, the church. However, you are right, the Church can be as outlandish and bigoted as they want on their own property, and these men should not have provoked them.
J.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Church property was violated when one guy kissed another one on the cheek.
Well, sure, but only if you want to go down an extreme and hyperbolic path of self serving, one sided, facetious straw men, but I don't think you do.
Oh, I agree that they shouldn't have done it knowing it would make the church overreact, and the church overreacted. They didn't use their heads. So they decided to enforce a little zero tolerance instead of dealing with these people as thinking human beings, and they stepped in it. The law breaking was on the two guys (as ridiculously inane that law is), but the stupid overreaching, that one's on the security guards, and by proxy, the church. However, you are right, the Church can be as outlandish and bigoted as they want on their own property, and these men should not have provoked them.
J.
Why would this church not be intolerant of homosexual activity on their own property? I know if they were on my property I'd certainly ask them to leave and then call the cops if necessary.
A
Amaris
Guest
Hey, that's fine. You do what you have to do to protect your property and your faith. I just think it's rather silly to call the cops over a peck on the cheek.
J.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
A
Amaris
Guest
Oh, I get that just fine. I just think the Church seriously dropped the ball on how they could have handled the situation.
J.
I think most people have said it wasd wrong for them not to have left when they were asked to do so. However that doesn't make the secuity guard's intiial behaviour any less ridiculous.
According to the guards statements in the police report, it was a little more than a peck on the cheek, they were "kissing and hugging". The two guys were also drunk, so that most likely played a role in the situation.
A
Amaris
Guest
Now see, if accurate, THAT I understand. Public intoxication and making out on private property would be a different story entirely.
What I was seeing from the original news report was this light, innocuous, brief, subtle peck on the cheek.
J.