United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Church that posted anti-LGBT sign is forced out of building
Source:
From The Trenches/WPTA21
URL Source: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c ... -forced-out-of-building/229572
Published: Jul 7, 2018
Author: Kayla Crandall
Post Date: 2018-07-08 10:43:04 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 4096
Comments: 46
AUBURN, Ind. (WPTA21) – An Auburn church with a controversial message on a sign has been forced out of their building. ABC21 reached a church member by phone Saturday who confirmed the news. On Wednesday, June 27, Remnant Fellowship Church in Auburn posted a sign reading, “LGBTQ is a hate crime against God. Repent.” When asked whether or not the church has plans to relocate, the church member had no comment. ABC21 previously spoke with a pastor of Remnant Fellowship, who said at the time their message is an attempt to “…reach young people and steer them away from a lifestyle they believe is harmful to them.” The church maintains it is not intolerant of others beliefs, but that it’s finding those on the other side of this issue are intolerant of the beliefs of Remnant Fellowship Church. http://www.wpta21.com/story/38592321/church-who-posted-anti-lgbt-sign-is-forced-out-of-building
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 37.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
Should be in YUGE NEON. Private property. Exactly WHO "forced out" this church from the building?? By whose authoritah? Since when are mobs allowed to violate the the 1A as well as censor God's Word?
Should be in YUGE NEON. I wonder if the sign had read: “LGBTQ is a
The man owns the property the church uses. He has the ABSOLUTE right to send them packing anytime he wants to as long as he does not violate any laws. Say THAT ain’t so....GO ON. Libertarians are virtually defined by their commitment to both liberty and rights of private property. Say THAT ain’t so....GO ON. You libertarians continually vacillate on your positions and change them at any reason on the slightest whim....Say THAT ain’t so....GO ON.
No surprise to see you support this bullshit. Gatlin - LF's GLBTQ cheerleader and God hater. You libertarians are such God Damned asshole hypocrites. Gatlin is angry my friends - like an old man trying to send back soup at a deli.
No surprise to see you support this bullshit. Gatlin - LF's GLBTQ cheerleader and God hater. You are incoherent again. How can I be a GLBTQ cheerleader and support the property owner’s right to kick the church out for supporting them? You are one dumbass who cannot properly express himself. You statement was contradictory. Respecting property rights in not hating God. Did you know that private property has biblical roots? It does, though many people don’t realize it. Deuteronomy 5:21 commands: “You [the Remnant Fellowship Church in Auburn] shall not set your desire [that the LGBTQ community repent because they feel it is a hate crome against God] on your neighbor’s house or land [the owner of the building and land]… or anything that belongs to your neighbor [the property owner] where the sign was posted].” Gatlin is angry my friends ...
libertarians believe in freedom of speech. In this case - the church has had their First Amendment rights violated. Did you know that private property has biblical roots? It does, though many people don’t realize it. Deuteronomy 5:21 commands: You're not fooling anyone with your fake piety Spanky. Maybe you should read nolu's post: You cannot discriminate on the basis of a tenant’s status as a member of a protected class. In Indiana, these protected classes are:
You do not know the reason the church no longer occupies the building. We cannot eliminate the possibility that the lease had expired and the landlord chose not to renew it because of th controversy the sign caused in the community. There are many other explainable possibilities for the lawful removal of the church from the property.
Nothing "lawful" about it.
Stupid reply !!!
Stupid reply !!! Perhaps not. It may be fake news to the extent that it did not happen as described. It appears impossible that they were lawfully evicted unless some special unmentioned provision was applicable. See at #7: The only person authorized to actually remove a tenant from the rental unit is a law enforcement officer. This can only happen after a landlord has won an eviction lawsuit against the tenant. The landlord must never try to force the tenant to move out of the rental unit.
It appears impossible that they were lawfully evicted unless some special unmentioned provision was applicable. I would rather not arrive at a conclusion based on “appearances.”
Actually, your proffer of "many other explainable possibilities for the lawful removal of the church from the property," offers what appear to be explanations impossible to be lawful. As documented at my #7 and #23, Eviction is by a law enforcement officer and "can only happen after a landlord has won an eviction lawsuit against the tenant." As documented below, a lawsuit can be brought only after the landlord gives notice to the tenant of the tenant's noncompliance with IC-32-32-7, Chapter 7, and the tenant has been given a reasonable amount of time to remedy the noncomplaince. The article asserts the sign was posted on June 27th. There is simply no physical time for the landlord to have given notification of a violation, and reasonable time for a remedy to have expired, and an eviction lawsuit to have been brought, and an eviction to have lawfully taken place. It is possible that the landlord told the tenant they were no longer welcome and they chose to leave, but then they would not have been "been forced out of their building," which is the lead claim of the article. Landlord's cause of action to enforce tenant obligations Sec. 7. (a) A landlord may bring an action in a court with jurisdiction to enforce an obligation of a tenant under this chapter. (b) Except as provided in subsection (c), a landlord may not bring an action under this chapter unless the following conditions are met: (1) The landlord gives the tenant notice of the tenant's noncompliance with a provision of this chapter. (2) The tenant has been given a reasonable amount of time to remedy the noncompliance. (c) If the noncompliance has caused physical damage that the landlord has repaired, the landlord shall give notice specifying the repairs that the landlord has made and documenting the landlord's cost to remedy the condition described in the notice. (d) A landlord is not required to comply with the notice requirements of this section to bring an action under subsection (a) if the tenant's occupancy of the rental premises has terminated. (e) This section may not be construed to limit a landlord's or tenant's rights under IC 32-31-3, IC 32-31-5, or IC 32-31-6. (f) If the landlord is the prevailing party in an action under this section, the landlord may obtain any of the following, if appropriate under the circumstances: (1) Recovery of the following: (A) Actual damages. (B) Attorney's fees and court costs. (2) Injunctive relief. (3) Any other remedy appropriate under the circumstances. As added by P.L.92-2002, SEC.1.
#38. To: nolu chan (#37)
(Edited)
I believe there is such a thing. I would think that generally it means two parties of sound mind and comprehension, agree in tandem to a contract that can be verbal or written. So mutual consent can relate to anything with such a general definition. I would think, however, to have a "contract" or agreement between two parties that engages the construct of mutual consent, both parties have to be of a minimum age of majority and have a mental level of understanding of what their actual agreement pertains and the consequences. Does that sound about right? I amy be wrong, but you seem to be working on the supposition that the headline in the article is correct and the church was illegally “forced” out of the building. While as I said, I don’t like to work from appearances (or suppositions) and would rather wait until there is enough verifiable information available for me to make a conclusion. I really prefer not to deal with “appearances” or “suppositions.” Therefore, I have a “News Alert” notice for further news on this matter and I will keep you posted and should I learn anything new that is of interest. I ask that you please do the same for me. Thank you.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest“LGBTQ is a hate crime against God. Repent.”
#3. To: Liberator (#2)
“LGBTQ is a hate crime against God. Repent.”
hate crime SIN against God. Repent.” if there would have been as much of an outcry. You know that dark days are ahead when churches are not allowed to preach or post God's word.
#4. To: Deckard, GrandIsland (#3)
(Edited)
You know that dark days are ahead when churches are not allowed to preach or post God's word.
You libertarians are such God Damned asshole hypocrites. You libertarians notoriously condemn as unrightfully any interference whatsoever with private property. And now your are whining that the owner of this private property kicked out a church.
#6. To: Gatlin (#4)
(Edited)
The man owns the property the church uses. He has the ABSOLUTE right to send them packing anytime he wants to
#8. To: Deckard (#6)
(Edited)
The man owns the property the church uses. He has the ABSOLUTE right to send them packing anytime he wants to... The remainer of the quote: as long as he does not violate any laws. Say THAT ain’t so....GO ON.
Libertarians notoriously, condemn as unrightfully, any interference with private property. It is no surprise to see you be two-faced and abandon the libertarianism principle of private property. You libertarians are such God Damned asshole hypocrites.
You are so wrong. The expletive I used was not a resultant cause of anger, I used it because swearing actually increased my pain tolerance level for you, your ignorant rational and your flip-flop on libertarianism principles. It may surprise you to learn that researchers have determined that swearing can have a ‘pain-lessening effect’, according to new study.
#9. To: Gatlin (#8)
(Edited)
Libertarians notoriously, condemn as unrightfully, any interference with private property.
#26. To: Deckard, nolu chan (#9)
Maybe you should read nolu's post ...
I read Nolu’s post. I knew everything there, just not the specific details.
#27. To: Gatlin (#26)
There are many other explainable possibilities for the lawful removal of the church from the property.
#30. To: Deckard (#27)
#33. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#30)
Nothing "lawful" about it.
Removal of the Tenant
#35. To: nolu chan (#33)
Perhaps not. It may be fake news to the extent that it did not happen as described.
#37. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#35)
[Gatlin #35] I would rather not arrive at a conclusion based on “appearances.”
[Gatlin #26] We cannot eliminate the possibility that the lease had expired and the landlord chose not to renew it because of th controversy the sign caused in the community. There are many other explainable possibilities for the lawful removal of the church from the property.
IC 32-31-7-7
Replies to Comment # 37. Actually, your proffer of "many other explainable possibilities for the lawful removal of the church from the property," offers what appear to be explanations impossible to be lawful.
I admit the use of the word “many” when referring to “other explainable possibilities for the lawful removal of the church from the property" was an overstatement. Therefore, I will at this time amend my statement to read: There is one other possibility for the lawful removal of the church from the property” and that possibility is that it could have been done legally by “mutual consent.”
End Trace Mode for Comment # 37.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]