- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: In Montreal, you can’t have a Christian singer have a worship service in a Church
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:27 pm to jimmy the leg
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:27 pm to jimmy the leg
Yea but I have a lot respect for Slow. I don't want to see him like Hank.
0
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:27 pm to GRTiger
quote:
Did you just yada yada the reason shite went sideways?
No. The random protestors (including the smoke bomb) are not relevant to the discussion.
They were not the reason for the police ending the concert.
quote:
This is starting to piss me off b
I get it. I answered relevantly and didn't go down the illogical road you were trying to direct the conversation
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:27 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
He is being disingenuous i
You said this? After what you've done ITT?
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:27 pm to the808bass
quote:
Anyone who says Feucht is being persecuted is dim.
Anyone who says Feucht is being treated exactly according to the letter of the law is a fricking retard.
But more to the actual point:
Anyone who says "In Montreal, you can’t have a Christian singer have a worship service in a Church" is being just as dumb.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Sure, but that makes the response of the concert tour organizers illogical.
No, it doesn’t.
The public land concert obviously required a permit. No one is disputing that.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:28 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:
Nope, that was GRTiger on page 10.
Whoa there fella. Which page 10 post?
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:28 pm to the808bass
quote:
No, it doesn’t.
The public land concert obviously required a permit. No one is disputing that.
That wasn't the implication.
If the violation was so obvious, a restraining order should have been easy to obtain. I've said this a few times ITT
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:29 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:
Anyone who says "In Montreal, you can’t have a Christian singer have a worship service in a Church" is being just as dumb.
Correct. You can’t have a worship service in a Church in Montreal only if you’re Sean Feucht.
(Which is the entire point of this thread and the article.)
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If the violation was so obvious, a restraining order should have been easy to obtain. I've said this a few times ITT
Sure. A litigious person would’ve immediately filed a restraining order.
A relatively unsophisticated church would just say “we do stuff like this all the time and we don’t need a permit.”
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They were not the reason for the police ending the concert.
They were just mostly peacefully rampaging when the police arrived and allowed the service to go on until the savages ran in.
Have you seen any video from this thing?
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:32 pm to the808bass
quote:
Sure. A litigious person would’ve immediately filed a restraining order.
A rational person responds to a violation of law, legally.
quote:
A relatively unsophisticated church
If this is the angle we're going for, it makes Sean Feucht look even worse (as a manipulator of an unsophisticated church), because he knew the details of the violation.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
because he knew the details of the violation.
Or, alternately, he knew there was genuinely no violation.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
A rational person responds to a violation of law, legally.
How does a rational person respond to a violation of rights?
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Not true, but we can go on.
Can't because that's the crux of the issue. You won't admit it because it crushes your myopic arguments, and you're a little man with little character.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You said this? After what you've done ITT?
I was fricking with on some of it (I find your brand of autism to be fascinating).
However, this was said:
quote:
SFP:
I don't think they have a specific metropolitan code.
I said:
Capricious…and arbitrary.
SFP:
the venue lacked these approvals
I replied:
Approvals huh? I wonder what the Castro Clan disapproved of?
A man sang about Jesus at church.
You said that isn’t allowed.
You claimed it wasn’t sincere worship because it was in a city on his concert tour.
Again, don’t pull a Hank.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:35 pm to the808bass
quote:
Or, alternately, he knew there was genuinely no violation.
Then we're back to this
quote:
A rational person responds to a violation of law, legally.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:36 pm to GRTiger
quote:
How does a rational person respond to a violation of rights?
The same way. Legally.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:36 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
and you're a little man with little character.
Because I won't lie? Ok
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
And who didn't do that?
Posted on 7/26/25 at 5:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
A rational person responds to a violation of law, legally.
Which there was none.
Page 26 of 43
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News