Comments on: ADF Sues Michigan Group For Disrupting Church Services

By: Timothy (TRiG)

Timothy (TRiG) — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:01:40 +0000

Interrupting church services was a part of the Suffragette Movement. TRiG.

By: Buffy

Buffy — Sun, 17 May 2009 03:00:25 +0000

I’m not supporting the actions of Bash Back. However I find it ironic the ADF is suing citing a law they and their ilk commonly claim violates their “religious freedoms” since it requires them to remain a certain distance from clinics and women seeking reproductive health care services. (Apparently it’s necessary to make physical contact with a woman to “provide abortion alternatives” and they pine for the good old days when they could get right into a woman’s face and beat the Love Of God into her. )

By: MCR

MCR — Sat, 16 May 2009 19:51:52 +0000

I totally agree that Bash Back was in the wrong, but just as a point of clarification, they can’t violate a chruch’s first amendment rights. The first amendment guarantees the freedom to practice religion free from government interference.

Saying Bash Back violated the church’s first amendment rights buys into the same line of reasoning that allows any people like Carrie Prejean to say their first amendment rights are violated because others disagree with them.

By: JJQR

JJQR — Sat, 16 May 2009 14:02:41 +0000

I’d love to see those pink-hooded fools try to pull that in a black church in a black neighborhood.

By: Tommy

Tommy — Sat, 16 May 2009 06:48:13 +0000

One of the fun things about Bash Back is that they are anti-gay marriage activists. Straight (pun intended) from their myspace page…

“State recognition in the form of oppressive institutions such as marriage and militarism are not steps toward liberation but rather towards heteronormative assimilation.”

Personally I think we need to make very clear that they are Maggie Gallagher’s problem, not ours.

By: Rick in Kansas

Rick in Kansas — Sat, 16 May 2009 01:06:10 +0000

Given the ADF’s string of losses in challenging NY Gov. Patterson’s executive order recognizing out of state same sex marriages, the “good christian lawyers” really need a win against teh gays to bolster their flagging image. So why not take on such an easy case as this? They aren’t likely to get a dime out of the community’s version of wannabe anarchists, but they get a nice symbolic victory of defending this “poor beseiged church” against the evil homoSEXuals and that can’t hurt in their own fundraising efforts.

By: a. mcewen

a. mcewen — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:32:39 +0000

Bash Back means nothing to me. It’s a counterproductive group of pseudo revolutionaries who does the lgbt community more harm than good. It’s transitory visibility at its worse. I hope we do what we can to distinguish legitimate lgbt groups from this group.

By: SharonB

SharonB — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:41:03 +0000

Is Bash Back a gay advocacy group, an anachist group, or both?

Please don’t tell me they are are members of some anarco-sydicalist commune.

By: Clancy

Clancy — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:36:24 +0000

Unfortunately, the anti-gays will use this as further ammunition on how much we “hate” Christians and will do everything we can to destroy society. For our part there will be some hand wringing for a while to see who will say what. While I am not condoning what they did, do these people get nervous when a certain Kansas group pickets funerals? I guess I am a little tired of us not being able to just say, “These people do NOT represent the gay community. We are just as appalled by their behavior as you are. Stop trying to make it seem that they are only following “the gay agenda”.”.

By: jOHN

jOHN — Fri, 15 May 2009 18:29:16 +0000

Not that I am supporting this group but I wonder if any of the church members realize that what they felt that morning many young gay people feel every day of their lives.