Texas Court Rules Police May Form Human Barricades to Block Opposition to ‘Gay’ Pride Events

FaustFORT WORTH, Texas — The highest criminal court in Texas has ruled that it is permissible for police to form human barricades to physically block dissenters from engaging with attendees of “gay pride” events in situations where there is a possibility that the hearers might become violent.

On Wednesday, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reinstated the conviction of a preacher and a member of his congregation who had been previously found not guilty of “interfering with public duties” for crossing a barricade that was meant to separate them from attendees of a homosexual festival in Fort Worth.

“We agree with the sentiment expressed by the trial court judge — that [the men] literally crossed the line, from engaging in purportedly protected speech to physically interfering with a lawful police order,” a divided court ruled.

As previously reported, Joey Faust and other members of Kingdom Baptist Church in Venus, Texas, were physically blocked by police in October 2012 while attempting to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with attendees of the Fort Worth “Ride the Rainbow” pride parade.

Faust states that as he and others were preaching and distributing tracts to those in the parade, suddenly, the police formed a human blockade across the public walkway.

“The police lined up [across the street] and said, ‘You can go no further,” he told Christian News Network. “We were forbidden to cross the street and they wouldn’t tell us if we were being detained.”

Faust said that as he stood for some time watching others being allowed to pass by the human blockade, except for anyone that was present to witness to attendees, it became obvious that the police had an agenda.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Christians who were in support of homosexuals were allowed to cross the street,” he stated. “A Christian walked by me right in front of the officers, and said, ‘I’m here with my family and some of them are homosexuals.’”

Faust then asked police why they were specifically restricting those that oppose homosexuality.

“I asked, ‘Why are they allowed to pass?’” he said. “They were just quiet.”

“At that point, I took a step and attempted to cross,” Faust outlined. “Once I stepped into the street, [the officer] put my hands behind my back.”

Faust and a second member of his congregation, Ramon Marroquin, were then charged with “interfering with public duties,” a class B misdemeanor. He was jailed for 20 hours and held on $1,500 bail.

In May 2013, a judge found both Faust and Marroquin guilty of the charge and sentenced them to two days jail time and a $250 fine, plus court costs. Since the men had already spent time in jail following their arrest, the sentence was pronounced as time served.

Faust and Marroquin then appealed the sentence, and last June, the Second District of Texas Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling, finding the men not guilty and concluding that their First Amendment rights had been violated.

“The skirmish line prohibited all members of the church from exercising their right of free speech merely because of their association with the church,” the court concluded. “This is far too broad a limitation.”

But the ruling was again appealed and on Wednesday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that police acted lawfully in forming a human barricade as it opined that the officers were promoting safety rather than interfering with religious speech. It pointed to claims from police officers that Faust and Marroquin’s group had used abusive and inflammatory speech in the past that incited attendees to anger.

“Although it was a governmental restriction on protected speech, the skirmish line was reasonable because it was justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, it was narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and it left open ample alternative channels for communication of appellants’ views,” the court concluded.

Two judges dissented, including presiding judge Sharon Keller, who opined that “[t]he fixed skirmish line … burdened more speech than necessary to achieve the interest of preventing violence.”

“The only specific statements recited in the record as being made by either Faust or Marroquin at the parade before the imposition of the skirmish line that were inflammatory with respect to members of the parade were signs that suggested that homosexuals would go to Hell or burn in Hell,” she wrote. “But religions and religious groups often make claims about Hell and what may cause someone to end up there. These signs communicated a religious viewpoint, and do not themselves convey fighting words.”

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Nidalap

    Ah. This is just one of those transitional baby-steps from a free speech-loving republic, to a Gestapo-using, jack booted dictatorship…

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    This situation reminds me of one many years ago in Skokie, Illinois, a predominantly Jewish suburb of Chicago. At that time, the American Nazi party applied for a permit to march through the town as a matter of freedom of speech. Many residents had relatives who had died in the Nazi death camps and were violently opposed. The police did their job, they protected the marchers from the residents by forming human barricades. Is this situation any different?

    If the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) conducted a protest march through the streets of San Francisco, it would be the duty of the police to protect them from the indignant crowds, just as it is when a Gay Pride march is conducted through the most heavily Southern Baptist locales in our country.

    • Nidalap

      Well said, and correct! That, however is not what occurred here. If the police had believed that they were protecting this group from another that intended harm, they would not have formed a passive, human shield around them. They formed that line so that there would be a violation of some kind of law. Without their presence, the actions of the ‘offenders’ were perfectly legal. Their job was to quell the free speech of a certain group, and they served that purpose…

      • afchief

        You are 100% correct!

      • acontraryview

        “Their job was to quell the free speech of a certain group”

        In what way was their speech quelled?

        • Nidalap

          Well, it can be like one of those ‘Magic Eye’ pictures, where you kind of have to make your eyes lose focus to see the hidden image! Hmm…try imagining that the two groups were reversed and the same thing happened… (^_^)

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t say in what way their speech was quelled. Got it. Thanks.

            “try imagining that the two groups were reversed and the same thing happened”

            I would completely support it.

          • Mike B

            The speech was quelled because they wanted to speak to people on the other side of the human barrier, which was a public area, but were prevented. Free speech means you can speak in public where other people are speaking – not just in whatever corner the cops decide to put you in because they don’t like the church you belong to. (They didn’t restrict them from crossing the street because of what they said or did – all church members were prevented from crossing even if they were saying nothing and had no signs or banners.)

          • acontraryview

            “Free speech means you can speak in public where other people are speaking”

            No, that is not what it means. If that were the case, then please explain how it is legal to remove hecklers or others who are disturbing a public event. How is it legal to place restrictions on how far protestors must stay away from a public event?

          • Mike B

            Well no I didn’t write a treatise on all the exceptions to the general statement I made. Of course if there is a permitted parade going on, you can’t decide to camp out in the middle of the parade route, impede the traffic, and say you are exercising free speech, just because the parade is taking place on a public road.

            But nothing of the sort happened there. What happened at this event, is you could walk across a nearby street (as a a non parade participant) while proclaiming to everyone, for instance that sodomy is wonderful, but if the police thought you might say something that was anti-sodomy, you were prevented from even walking in the same area.

            This is undoubtedly “quelling” of free speech.

            But I can understand why you thought otherwise if the article gave you the idea they were trying to interfere with the progress of the parade.

          • acontraryview

            “This is undoubtedly “quelling” of free speech.”

            Since they were not told to stop speaking, it was not quelling of free speech.

            “Well no I didn’t write a treatise on all the exceptions to the general statement I made.”

            According to the judiciary, this situation was one of the exceptions.

          • Mike B

            “According to the judiciary, this situation was one of the exceptions.”

            Well yes, according to this divided court, this was one of the exceptions. (Tautology anyone?) The issue isn’t whether this court says this was one of the exceptions, its whether they were right.

            “Since they were not told to stop speaking, it was not quelling of free speech.”

            I think this is the part you are not getting. You don’t have to be told to stop speaking to quell your free speech rights. If the government doesn’t allow you to do something that otherwise would be lawful (e.g. walk down a sidewalk with everyone else), because of previous free speech exercised by you (or someone “associated” with you), then that has a chilling effect on free speech. It is “quelling” free speech; not just for those particular people who were prevented from walking down the street, but for everyone else who thought about saying something the government doesn’t like that decided against exercising their free speech because they wanted to retain their right to freely walk down a sidewalk.

          • acontraryview

            “The issue isn’t whether this court says this was one of the exceptions, its whether they were right.”

            And that would differ from every other judicial ruling, how? If every judicial trial there is one party who believes one thing and another party who believes the opposite.

            I would suggest you look up the definition of the word “quell” and then get back to me to explain how their right of free speech was “quelled”.

            “saying something the government doesn’t like”

            Yes, how strange that the government is concerned about speech that may incite violence. Ridiculous, huh?

    • Mr. Avatar

      And you really believe that San Francisco would grant a permit for an agenda that is against their belief’s. I don’t think so. They already break federal law with sanctuary city’s. The Governor should be in prison for giving illegals drivers licenses which also register people to vote. Being Illegal is a crime.

      • Elie Challita

        I live in San Francisco. We had “traditional marriage” marches multiple times this year, you idiot.

  • 201821208_456512019 :)

    “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged
    the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Rom.

  • SFBruce

    I think the police and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals got this right. Yes, Christians have First Amendment rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but LGBT people have those same rights, including freedom of association and freedom of assembly. Police have the tremendous challenge of maintaining public safety while trying to respect those important, fundamental rights.

    If you want to “share the gospel of Jesus Christ” with gay people, gay pride events are just not a place where you’re likely to be greeted with open arms. I’ve been to gay events where there were Christian demonstrators, and I can tell you that if their intent was to “tell the truth in love,” that loving feeling was far from apparent. The notion that signs that promise hell fire and other acts of vengeance for gay people aren’t fighting words is nonsense.

    • Mike B

      A sign with a Bible verse condemning sodomy might make SFBruce want to start a fight. But the legal doctrine of “fighting words” first established by the Supreme Court in 1942, and affirmed and modified by various other decisions over the years, does not even remotely contemplate a Bible sign at a sodomite parade as “fighting words”.

      • SFBruce

        I agree that Chaplinsky rightly defines the notion of fighting words very narrowly, but that doesn’t change the fact police have to make on the spot decisions about how to maintain public safety while at the same time trying to respect the civil liberties of different groups with competing interests. But my point had less to do with legal concepts than with simple common sense. If you open a conversation with a gay person by quoting Leviticus 20:13, I don’t think you’re likely to make a lot of gay friends. The same goes for using gay epithets.

        • Mike B

          This was no on the spot decision by the police. The trial record, which is a public record, makes this manifest. They had a special group of officers deployed for this occasion. And there as no imminent threat to anyone’s safety that would be compromised by these individuals walking along the sidewalk where all the other bystanders were walking. You can’t stop someone from walking or speaking in a public area because theoretically a sodomite might decide to punch someone quoting a Bible verse.

          And regarding “common sense”: the preachers were not trying to make friends with the sodomites. They were biblically rebuking the public sin and sinners, and especially trying to shame the professing Christians who were marching in the filthy parade and who brought their children to see the spectacle. (And it truly was filthy – even by today’s debased standards – your ten o’clock news would simply not air some of the things that went on at this parade because they’d be afraid the FCC would come knocking.)

          • SFBruce

            That you acknowledge the preachers weren’t there out of concern for the souls of the festival participants, and instead were there to publicly shame and humiliate them undermines your larger argument that they presented no threat to public safety.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Matthew 13:24-30

    Follow Jesus, find Wisdom.

  • Reason2012

    Adults continue to permanently turn away from homosexuality, even after decades of believing the lie they were “born that way”, proving it’s not genetic, but the product of indoctrination, confusion, mental instability and/or abuse.

    Homosexual behavior is most literally pointed out as a sin, and God has not changed on that regard. But if a person has those inclinations but does not act upon them, does not dwell in lust upon others, but is instead struggling against them to avoid them, then it’s not a sin. It’s just like sinful inclinations of any kind: it’s acting upon it when it becomes a sin.

    And this is what God says about sin and specifically the behavior of homosexuality:

    Romans 1:26-27 ”For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their_lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ”Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [men who willingly take on the part of a “woman” with another man], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [s odomites], (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

    1 Timothy 1:9-10 ”Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For_whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [s odomites], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”

    Jude 1:7 ”Even as_Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

    Luke 17:29 ”[Jesus said] But the same day that Lot went out of_Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.”

    Matthew 19:4-6 ”And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    Jesus made it quite clear God made us male and female so that a man will leave his father and mother (not two fathers, not three mothers and so on) and cleave onto his wife (not his husband and so on).

    The Word of God rebukes us all – even if we all try to say we don’t believe the Bible, the very Word of God will be our judge when we face Him. And God is a righteous judge and will judge us all – not turn a blind eye to our sin. Do not be deceived by the world: it’s God we will have to convince that His word was a lie, not men. What happened in Noah’s day when the entire world rejected God? Did God spare them because there were so many? No – they all perished except for Noah and his family!

    Proverbs 9:10 ”The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.”

    God spared not His chosen people – we are kidding ourselves if we think He will spare the United States of America if we choose to blatantly turn away from Him.

    Jeremiah 12:17 ”But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD.”

    Luke 17:28-30 “So also as it was in the days of Lot: they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; (29) but the day Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from the heaven and destroyed them all. (30) Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”

    Romans 1:18-32 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

    Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, m urder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

    The entire Bible points out men having_sex with men is an abomination. Likewise woman having_sex with women. It’s not just Paul that pointed it out.

    Genesis 19:4-13 “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of S odom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them [men wanting to have_sex with men].

    And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing [he offers his daughters to be_raped to keep them from having_sex with another man – shows_rape is not the issue but male on male_sex]; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

    And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

    And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.”

    These two messengers were sent to destroy that place before the event where they tried to_rape these messengers.

    Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

    Even cross-dressing is an abomination:

    Deuteronomy 22:5 “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

    Deuteronomy 23:17 “There shall be no_whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a s odomite of the sons of Israel.”

    1 Kings 22:46 “And the remnant of the s odomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.”

    1 Kings 15:11-12 “And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the s odomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.”

    2 Kings 23:7 “And he brake down the houses of the s odomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.”

    Ezekiel 16:49-50 “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister S odom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”

    And the “pride” parades about homosexuality are more of the same.

    Matthew 19:4-5 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

    Not father and father. Not mother and mother. Not his husband.

    And only two people of opposite gender can become “one flesh”.

    Live forever, people – not temporarily only to be cast out for living for the things of this world.

    May God/Jesus Christ be glorified!

  • “…where there is a possibility that the hearers might become violent.”

    If I understand this correctly, normally the police will protect the demonstrators from the violence that can come from a crowd; in this case, the crowd (Christians) were being protected from expected violence from the demonstrators.

    Does anyone else have that verse about “good for evil” and “evil for good” verse running around their head?

  • acontraryview

    ““We were forbidden to cross the street and they wouldn’t tell us if we were being detained.””

    But they weren’t being detained. They were free to leave if they wanted to.

    ““The skirmish line prohibited all members of the church from exercising their right of free speech”

    No, their free speech was not infringed. They were free to say what they wanted. They simply were not free to do so in a manner which interfered with the parade.

    • Mike B

      It didn’t and wouldn’t have interfered with the parade. As the parade ended, people “followed” the end of the parade by walking on the sidewalks (not in the street) toward the final destination which was a park down the way. The church members tried to walk along these same sidewalks as everyone else did, to speak to the people at and around the final destination of the parade. The video evidence shows that where they were trying to go would not interfere with the parade anymore then it did when all sorts of other bystanders walked that way. This video from the trial is a public record; you should try educating yourself before you comment.

      • acontraryview

        From the article:

        “Faust states that as he and others were preaching and distributing tracts to those in the parade”

        “We were forbidden to cross the street and they wouldn’t tell us if we were being detained.”

        Unless the article is not accurate, and Faust is lying, what you said was not the issue. Do you have a link to the video?

        • Mike B

          No one is lying, but that sentence in the article needs to be slightly rewritten. They were preaching to those in the parade as well as the bystanders. Some people passed out tracts to the onlookers. No one was passing out tracts to the people in the parade or otherwise interfering or attempting to interfere with the parade. The street they attempted to cross was a cross street that they were arbitrarily prevented from crossing – not the street the parade was going down.

          I don’t have a link to the video – I saw it played in court during the trial. But it is a public record and a with a simple FOIA request from the appropriate governmental website they will send you a copy of the video for free.

          • acontraryview

            “Faust states that as he and others were preaching and distributing tracts to those in the parade”

            If what you say is true (“No one was passing out tracts to the people in the parade”) then it is clear that either Faust is lying or the author of the article is lying about what Faust said.

            “The street they attempted to cross was a cross street that they were arbitrarily prevented from crossing”

            It was not arbitrary, as the reasons for doing so were clearly explained.

          • Mike B

            “Faust states that as he and others were preaching and distributing tracts to those in the parade”

            “In” should read “at”. I can think of several obvious reasons why that one word can be in error without assuming someone is a liar. (Misquote, misspoke, typographical error.)

            Calling someone a liar unjustly is so serious that it has even historically been regarded as fighting words in the United States judicial system. More importantly, making false accusations will get you in trouble with God. You should be more careful with your wild accusations.

          • acontraryview

            “Calling someone a liar unjustly”

            Unjustly? What is unjust about citing the article’s words as evidence of a lie? What is “wild” about citing the article’s words as evidence of a lie?

            Fascinating that you bring up the concept of “fighting words” and suggest I should be more careful in using them, let you defend the “fighting words” of these preachers and believe they should be fully allowed to use them.

          • Mike B

            “It was not arbitrary, as the reasons for doing so were clearly explained.”

            The “reasons” given were ridiculous. The preachers were intermingling with the crowd, engaged in free speech for the whole duration of the parade. Then as the parade was ending, a skirmish line was formed so the preachers (and only the preachers) could not go towards the area where everyone else was congregating. No explanation was given (at the time) as to why everyone else could walk that direction but the preachers could not. They made a couple of arrests when the preachers tried to walk that way anyway. Then the cops suddenly dispersed and allowed the remaining preachers to walk along the same path where people were still walking (exactly like before they made their skirmish line), and the remaining preachers then continued to exercise the same free speech as they walked across that street, down the sidewalk, and at the destination.

            If that isn’t arbitrary police behavior with a chilling effect on free speech, I don’t know what is.

          • acontraryview

            “The “reasons” given were ridiculous.”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

  • Elie Challita

    Sad to think that conservatives will support cops who shoot unarmed black people, and get their panties in a knot if a pastor is asked not to be a dick…

    • Mike B

      I don’t know about other conservatives, but that pastor doesn’t support cops that shoot unarmed black people (or the many white people who are abused by bad cops – but that doesn’t fit the racial narrative so we must not talk about those incidents.)

      By the way the pastor wasn’t “asked” anything. He was arrested, jailed, and fined for walking down a street because he was the member of a certain church.

      • Elie Challita

        I couldn’t care less what a particular individual’s views are. The party as a whole has made it clear enough that they idolize brute force by the authorities in every instance except when it comes calling for them.

        • Mike B

          Many so-called conservatives do indeed idolize police and support them blindly when they unjustly use force (unless it’s against one of their own.) But most anti-war Democrats that railed against Bush have no problem with Obama’s wars. And most of these police forces that shoot unarmed people are ruled by “liberal” Democrats. (The Chicago Democratic machine controls that entire corrupt city.)

          This isn’t so much a “party” thing. The same authoritarian spirit that animates police officers to shoot unarmed black people if they don’t immediately assume a sufficiently groveling demeanor, is what it at work in the arrest of this preacher for crossing the street.

          • Elie Challita

            Actually, Obama’s military efforts are one of his major flaws in the eyes of most rank-and-file Democrats and progressives. He’s still much more restrained than Bush, considering he has yet to invade a new country with boots on the ground, but his continual involvement in Bush’s wars is definitely a black mark on his record for us.

            I’m not saying that there isn’t an authoritarian clique in certain cities, traditionally cities with a very high crime rate. Some of these cities have Democratic governments because they also have large non-white populations, who tend to avoid Republicans like the plague. I am saying, however, that the majority of Democrats nationwide demand higher standards of conduct for law enforcement officers, while the majority of Republicans will laud these officers when they put down dem uppity Black Lives Matter folk, then automatically accuse them of being jack-booted thugs if they come after tax-dodging white farmers.

  • Dennis

    This church is a King James version only church and as I have evangelized in downtown Fort Worth have been told by them I was wrong. They are an overly aggressive bunch and appear to have not love per 1 Cor. 13. They are a sort of “Westboro Baptist Church Lite”. They have made it more difficult to witness to homosexuals by their aggressiveness.

    • Mike B

      No love per 1 Cor. 13? That’s a pretty serious charge to make just because we preach in an old fashioned way with an old fashioned Bible. Maybe you have no love per this verse:

      Leviticus 19:17 “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.”

      What you would call “aggressive” we would call “upbraiding”. Is there something wrong with upbraiding a city?

      Matthew 11:20 “Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:”

      And you should be ashamed of yourself for defaming us by comparing us to the abominable (and probably phony) Westboro Baptist Church. The only commonality we have with them is that we teach and preach against sodomy and are Baptist. Since Westboro is not King James Only nor fundamentalist maybe it would be fair to compare them to you?

      Preaching the truth boldly does not make witnessing more difficult. I have had many fruitful conversations downtown that began with a blunt remark made to someone walking by. Had I simply smiled and said “Jesus loves you” like a robot to everyone who passed by, many people would not have stopped. The Bible says some save with fear and others with compassion, making a difference. You need to realize there is a place to preach the fear of God. In a place like downtown Fort Worth, or at a sodomite pride parade, the fear of god is definitely called for.

      At that very parade, I had a fruitful and even tender conversation with a confused transgendered boy that began because he had questions about the hell fire judgement I was preaching.

      It’s so sad that many believers nowadays have been so corrupted by the world that they think preaching like John the Baptist, or Jeremiah, or even Jesus Christ himself, makes one “aggressive” and “unloving”. It is mainstream media that conditions folks to think that anyone who preaches boldly is like Westboro Baptist Church. Turn off the TV and unplug the internet for awhile, and start reading the Bible!