Despite the fact that no money is being taken? Think that one through again.
How is that different from, say, a thief selling the stuff he stole on the street and getting money that way? Does he get a pass because he didn't steal the money...just the thing he sold to get the money?
Or....
While "peeping tom" laws vary from state to state, pretty much all of them have problems with folks who barge into places and take pictures of people with out their consent, especially when they have an 'expectation of privacy.' People in LDS temples, having obtained recommends honestly and knowing that the rules of the place say 'no cameras,' have an expectation of privacy there. At least, that's what my research is telling me. However, this thread is about the video portraying the host being desecrated, and that is a whole different matter.
As I said, I haven't seen the video and do not intend to. However, the very idea that there are people who will DO that sort of thing just to show their contempt for the beliefs of others makes me cringe. It's probably not against the law, what they did, but it IS against any moral or ethical code I want to be associated with. People who do that are people who are, frankly, so far beneath contempt that if there WERE a law that allowed it, stocks in the middle of the town square would be appropriate.
Complete with boxes of rotten fruit for passers-by to throw at them.
However, there isn't such a law, and that's probably a good thing. Rotten fruit would be far more useful in a compost pile.
It seems to me that this is what you’re doing: you find what they’re doing distasteful and therefore immoral and therefore illegal.
I find it illegal because...at least as far as the LDS temple ceremony video taper is concerned, I believe it is. So, I think, do many states. However, that is absolutely beside the point.
What is bemusing to me here is that you are accusing me of...'there outabealaw' thinking when I have been taking the exact opposite position. In the case of the desecrated host, I have no clue if there was a law broken. Certainly simply making the movie isn't breaking a law, and as I wrote, laws regarding free speech (whether in the US Constitution or elsewhere) aren't about protecting the speech of those with whom we agree. It's about protecting the speech of those with whom we DON'T.
For instance...had this guy with the Temple Ceremony video taken the ceremony script (which can be found online) and filmed actors portraying it...and done so outside the temple, I don't think there would have been any law broken (well, maybe copyright but perhaps not even then). It is the fact that he entered the temple fraudulently, secretly filmed people without their knowledge or consent, and then plastered THAT on the internet (and is getting paid for it) that makes the legality of his actions dicey.
So unless the guys desecrating the host stole it, I honestly can't see where they broke a law...but then again, I haven't seen, and don't intend to see, that video so I can't really speak to that.
I have also told you that there is a huge difference between 'distasteful and immoral,' and 'legal.'
There are MANY distasteful and immoral things that are perfectly legal.
...........and should remain so.
There are even some distasteful and immoral things that are NOT legal that should be made so, IMO.
Legality is about protecting the culture from the actions of people who may harm it. It's not about 'sin.'
