Here's my follow-up article to the priest having a threesome in the church. The legal implication is that they had sex in a public place. They were all consenting adults- so no issues there. The return argument is that the church is a private place and they had no idea a passer-by on the outside would record them on a cellphone. Do I think this priest should lose his job for poor judgment? Hell, yes. Do I think he can go to jail? No. What next, peeping Toms record what you are doing in the privacy of your own home and upload it to the Internet saying you're having sex in public? Who the hell is that nosy and into other peoples' business? Man, with everything going on with churches, he was probably worried they were minors.
15
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
14 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button."Who the hell is that nosy and into other peoples' business?"
Well, if I understand the xtians right, their god is. But since church revenues are down due to COVID (he apparently didn't see that one coming), he is likely having to turn to new sources for money. So god probably set up some sort of new porn site to generate lost revenue, and this was a filming that didn't go as planned?
PadraicM
Level 7
Oct 12, 2020
1
That's an angle I didn't think of... Now I am wondering what kind of deal he made with the Satanists. If you read the article, the women promoted the endeavor as Satanists defiling the altar to their porn fans. I should lose interest in the legality implications soon and rechannel the energy into this. I'll be sure to post the follow-up third article when it's out.
Doesn't the church say that they are always open to everyone? Therefore all the person had to do was walk into the church, which would be open to the public as they always state that. Your own home is a totally different situation to a church which while not public property is open to the public. Sort of like making out in the cinema during the movie when you are a teenager.
Budgie
Level 8
Oct 12, 2020
1
Nosy prick sticks nose where it is not wanted, end of story. I live in a post modern design house, it has a lot of windows, it is 300 feet from the road and 30 feet above the road, people out walking or just driving by stop and stare into my house all the time. They are rude, little people - if they catch a look at my bare ass at 5:30 in the morning when I am half awake and making coffee then they can have their cheap thrill.
Surfpirate
Level 9
Oct 11, 2020
5
a church isn't a 'public place'! the managers can demand that you leave if they choose.
guynoir
Level 6
Oct 11, 2020
3
You're one of few people who knew that without research. Let's think this through- if the edifice isn't funded through our taxes - how is it public? I got it wrong too. A friend did the research.
By the same definition neither is a strip joint. However, the state can close it or prosecute is the show gets is explicit. Same goes for any theatre.
I used to live opposite a girls school, I am damn sure there would have been police knocking on my door if I started willy waggling around my living room when the pupils were looking in my direction.
All victimless "crimes" should be abolished.
Stop the madness.
SCal
Level 7
Oct 11, 2020
5
Possibly. Then people would just shoot porn on my lawn. I'm not sure how I would feel about that.
I agree. A number of years ago, in Florida, go figure, a guy standing outside a window videotaped 2 people having sex, in one of their homes. The people were arrested for public whateverness. In the end, and wasted court time and money, they were acquitted of any crimes.
Beowulfsfriend
Level 9
Oct 11, 2020
4
A friend of mine came up with this: [civilrights.findlaw.com]
I think the counter argument about it being a public or private place could be that the church was open to the public and anyone could walk in at any time. If he had it all locked up and this could not happen, that is a different story.
Joanne
Level 7
Oct 11, 2020
2
That seems to be the general consensus. Wow, how could he not lock the door?
A friend came up with this: [civilrights.findlaw.com]
Really, because the original article indicated that the priest had his phone set up on a tripod.
Churches are public, whilst the doors are open. His poor judgement in not shutting them was the issue here, anyone could have walked in.
People are people. But the fact is with the doors open it was a public place, hence he’s being held accountable, as others would be. It could have been a cafe or bar, would be the equivalent.
girlwithsmiles
Level 8
Oct 11, 2020
6
Ok, the doors being open v. being locked is also a factor... Great point. This brings me to a weird tangent. We can reasonably visit any public place? Maybe a museum needs an admission fee. A bridge with a toll has a fee. We can visit libraries and parks during their hours of operation. Does this mean we can walk into public schools during hours of operation? I know we can't sit-in on classes-in-session even though our tax dollars fund them.
@UrsiMajor not usually, only parents and people with legitimate reasons are allowed to access school sites; they are protected areas because of the kids. Unless they have a fete or something.
A friend came up with this: [civilrights.findlaw.com]
@UrsiMajor I’ve never heard of accommodation being used in that sense before, this is about what constitutes a public space: [lawinsider.com]
Should we search social media for the vid? LOL!!!
@IAJO163 lols, feel free, I’m not a fan of spectator sports myself
stor@girlwithsmiles I'm posting more about this story. All I can say is Whoa!
I don't think the argument about a church being a "private place" is valid. Churches are open to the public; that means by definition it's not a private place. A church is equivalent to a business or school, not a private home (ignoring all the blather about being "the house of God" ).
Furthermore, this was not a peeping Tom, it was someone (if I read it right) who saw unusual activity in what was supposed to be a closed building- the same as you or I walking by a business at night and seeing people moving around inside. We would be curious if these were legitimate employees cleaning after hours, or maybe burglars or vandals. It's the same as looking through the window into a school office and seeing two teachers doing it on the desk. The issue isn't people having sex; it's the venue they chose. The place was inappropriate.
And you can definitely face charges if you're exposing yourself even in your own home, in such a way that passersby can see you just by looking in. Someone that lives in an apartment that does not draw the shades or curtains can engage in indecent exposure if others are able to see the person naked from outside. Having sex with the curtains open would just compound the matter.
Paul4747
Level 8
Oct 11, 2020
3
Great point from girlwithsmiles that the doors were left open. Had they been locked it might have been different assessment.
@UrsiMajor That certainly does play a big part. But I think also, critically, although churches are not considered a place of public accomodation under the law, they are a place of public worship. And while a church is the private property of the diocese (in the case of the Catholic church), the public is welcome. It's not a private club. It's a very borderline case, but certainly not one where someone should treat it as their home to the point of having sex there; nor should anyone feel they have a "right to privacy". People can and do come up and look in the windows of churches to see if anyone is there, if the building is open, if the priest/reverend/etc is in the office, and so forth. I know I did, way back when, when I sought disputation on religious matters and went by the neighborhood church to see if I could find a professional to talk to.
I would have been very surprised to find anyone having sex, I can tell you that much.
A friend came up with this [civilrights.findlaw.com]
@UrsiMajor I'm pretty sure I read the same thing. But that's talking about anti-discrimination law, not public indecency statutes.
Any activity on private property that is still visible to the public, counts as public indecency. Example- your yard is private property, but (unless your locality allows this) you can't sunbathe nude in full view of the neighbors. You need to keep your activity private by having a fence.
I'm not sure if we should feel better that it wasn't with young boys?
IAJO163
Level 8
Oct 11, 2020
0
Yes, we should be glad no minors involved. We should be worried about privacy issues though. First of all, what is private? Is a building such as a church public or private property? If it is private, can charges be brought up against us if we forget to pull the drapes, have sex, and someone uses binoculars to record us on their cell phone? Can criminal charges then be brought up against us?
@UrsiMajor According to him, god was watching, yes? Was he seeking approval? There are already people using drones to scout people in hi rise apartments to post online. Social media has destroyed privacy so much that I put tape over my laptop camera and my shades are always drawn in my room. Call me paranoid but I call it being cautious.
Pity the DA who has to decide whether to prosecute and face the additional 'exposure' a trial would bring--the videos should make fascinating evidence--or drop it and face the potential backlash from the community. Although this is Louisiana, and I've been to New Orleans during carnival and seen some interesting things, so one would hope the (local) political pressure is minimal. Seems a waste to take the extravagant step of 'burning' the altar to rid the church of sex cooties when a simple bleaching might do!
And what of the priest? All believers know, or should remember, what their God does to those who 'defile the temple.' Is their God so weak as to require an elected prosecutor to do his bidding? The Catholic church will deal with him as any employer might do to an employee who breaks the terms of their employment, but to press charges of criminal behavior is absurd.
p-nullifidian
Level 8
Oct 11, 2020
2
Does it really matter, that a so called man of god had sex on some bs alter!!!
Seems they were consenting adults!!
We have more to worry about with trump and the obstructionist republican fascists using religion and evangelicals to garner power Over the rest of us!!!
If sex is your hang up!!!
There are plenty of free porno threesomes videos to occupy your time on the web!!!
Get a life!!!
of-the-mountain
Level 9
Oct 11, 2020
0
Did you read the whole post? What if someone films you having sex in the privacy of your own house and brings up charges on you for public indecency? There are lots complicated issues going on here, possibly a hard concept to grasp .
Since it was not in your bedroom what do you care!!!
It is not public indecency in the first place if taped in your bedroom!!!
It was filmed on an alter of a church which can have public access!!!
That is a matter for the local authorities and the church to figure out!!!
If if can be taped, then one must realize the probability of it being posted on line!!!
Anything posted on online stays on line forever!!!
The only hard concept to grasp is why are you So concerned!!!
LMAO!!!
Moronic idiots sure make a mess of something so natural!!!11
They always want to up the ante because... blasphemy!
Leelu
Level 7
Oct 11, 2020
1
Oh, or offence on an omnipotent being’s behalf, (who allegedly has the power to kill the priest on the spot if they chose). Funny old world isn’t it?
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Ethical Sluts
429 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.