mirrorshard: (Default)
[personal profile] mirrorshard
This time, I took a different tack with a preemptive statement.

"I'm a Christian, and I believe in honesty, integrity, tolerance, complete equality, women in the workplace, evolution, and sex before gay marriage. If you think any of those things are incompatible with Christianity, there's no point our discussing things."

"Well, some of those, such as evolution, are difficult to reconcile with the Bible - "

"Not for me, they aren't."

"-but we won't keep you, and I hope you have a nice day."

I'm tickled to learn that they (or that one, at least, with the obligatory lurking sidekick) apparently think evolution is worse than gay sex/marriage.

Date: 2009-07-04 09:34 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mirabehn.livejournal.com
And twice in two days, you get the Zoe icon. :-)

You *rock*, my darling. *beams*

Date: 2009-07-04 09:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com
Chalk that one up as a win for the queers!

Date: 2009-07-04 11:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] arkady.livejournal.com
That was absolutely brilliant! *stands and applauds*

Date: 2009-07-04 12:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] harald387.livejournal.com
I actually had a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door a couple of weeks ago.

'My door' is accessed in one of two ways: Either through a locked door to which residents of the building have a key, or through an unlocked door which is nevertheless marked 'PRIVATE PROPERTY' and 'NO SOLICITATION'.

Further, it was ten in the morning on a Saturday which means I was totally not set to receive people. So I answer the door in pajama bottoms and a t-shirt, with my hair wild in all directions from having woken up about ten minutes before and not had my coffee yet.

"We... uh, we were wondering if you had a few minutes to discuss --"
"Are you literate?"
"There are signs outside. Please go read them. Don't come back." *points at door*

Yes, it was rude, but so is breaking into my apartment building.

Date: 2009-07-04 12:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] valkyriekaren.livejournal.com
Ah, apparently Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that those 'no solicitation' and 'no cold callers' signs apply to them, because they're not selling anything, just trying to bring you good news about how you can be saved, and who would turn that down out of hand?

It's a peculiar doublethink, but they've actually gone to court to argue this one in the US.

JWs are Trespassers

Date: 2009-07-04 05:45 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
JWs have NO legal right to trespass on private property. The only court cases JWs have won are where governmental entities have tried to pass laws BLANKETLY barring JWs from door-knocking. Every private property owner retains the right to bar whomever they wish with certain exceptions such as police, etc.

The problem is that few owners and tenants ever have the guts to call the police, and of those who do, even fewer have the guts to prosecute the JW Trespassers.

Re: JWs are Trespassers

Date: 2009-07-04 10:05 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Trespass is a civil, not a criminal, offence. Therefore if the police are called they will (quite rightly) refuse to attend (or, if they attend, will do so in order to make sure that the landowner doesn't use unreasonable force in order to expel the trespasser).


Re: JWs are Trespassers

Date: 2009-07-05 04:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] valkyriekaren.livejournal.com
Oh, hello shouty anonymous person.

I did not say that Jehovah's Witnesses believed they had the legal right to trespass, just that they felt they had the moral right to ignore signs requesting no solicitation/cold calling. I cited their court cases in the US merely to illustrate that they were known for vigorously asserting this right.

Under English Common Law, these sort of signs, and indeed even signs stating 'No Trespassing', have absolutely no legal status. Trespass only occurs if a person is asked to leave by the property owner and refuses to do so.

I hope that's clear and won't lead to more random capitalisation on your part.

Re: JWs are Trespassers

Date: 2009-07-06 02:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elettaria.livejournal.com
Ooh, so that woman from an electricity company who refused to go away was technically trespassing? After saying, "I'm not interested," four times, I ended up having to close the door in my face, at which point she got really grouchy.

Is anyone wondering whether these two anonymice are in fact the same troll person

Re: JWs are Trespassers

Date: 2009-07-06 03:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mirrorshard.livejournal.com
The original anonymous is the same one who commented with the other rant; the one signing itself "S." is a different one, or at least posting from a different IP.

I've now turned on screening for anonymous comments, and won't be unscreening them unless they're actually useful. Which will be a rather higher bar than for signed ones.

Re: JWs are Trespassers

Date: 2009-07-06 02:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elettaria.livejournal.com

JW Legal Cases

Date: 2009-07-04 05:46 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
The following SUMMARIES OF OVER 1400 JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES CRIMINAL and CIVIL COURT CASES will provide the BEST and MOST ACCURATE info about Jehovah's Witnesses, their beliefs, and how they ACTUALLY practice such day to day.

The following website summarizes 900 court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including 400 cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children, as well as nearly 400 CRIMINAL cases -- most involving MURDERS:



The following website summarizes over 500 lawsuits filed by Jehovah's Witnesses against their Employers, incidents involving problem JW Employees, and other secret JW "history" court cases:



Re: JW Legal Cases

Date: 2009-07-04 10:01 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Doesn't that website refer to cases in the United States?

What is the relevance to the UK?


Date: 2009-07-04 05:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shuripentu.livejournal.com
There's an anti-evolution article in pretty much every issue of Awake!; homosexuality, OTOH, is hardly ever even mentioned, nevermind discussed in detail. Fornication in general is, though; in any article that discusses the debasing influences of these Critical Times Hard To Deal With (TM) (2 Tim 3:1), fornication is usually first on the list. Whenever it's discussed in detail, though, it's always heterosexual.

I've always got the impression that they just tend to forget (or ignore) that homosexuality is even an option.

Date: 2009-07-06 03:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elettaria.livejournal.com
Maybe they've decided that, as there are more mixed-sex couples around having sex than same-sex ones, they should concentrate on the more popular vice? Your chances of knocking on a random door and getting a mixed-sex couple are far higher than your chances of finding an Evil Homosexual pair, after all. Also they can shepherd the straight fornicators in the direction of marriage, which is an enduringly popular institution, but finding a solution for the queer folk is a bit trickier and not likely to involve anything that sounds that nice.

Date: 2009-07-05 07:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] keira-online.livejournal.com
I'll have to remember that one :P

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags