Agreed. Even then, the whole "I'm offended, you owe me money" concept is something I'm not a big fan of.
In this particular case:
Could be wrong, but I'm gonna bet that WH was not really referring to private property when saying "whole damn country should be a free speech zone""The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said.
Who's being a vigilante? Just expressing my opinion.
And yes, take a special kind for whatever the these guys are.
In the abstract, yes; but this appears not to be the case here. WBC holds their rallies in public areas.
Encouraging vigilantes to mete out violence to WCB isn't too different from what you claim WCB is doing: inciting against gays.
Except they are encouraging christians to do it, in a majority christian country.
Private property would obviously be the no-brainer. The point, I think, that WC was trying to make was whether or not a similar case could be made when a group uses a cemetary for a private function. I.e., should the act of a cemetary granting a private group the use of it's facility for a private funeral grant that private group the right to decide who can and can't show up?
Sure, I don't see why not.
How is that different?
"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said.
Vigilantes are a minority, and so are gays.
so are picketers at marine funerals.
yeah, Had WBC been at the cemetary, I am sure that the family could have asked the cemetary owners to throw them out. Too bad they weren't at the cemetary so this could have happened.
"majority christian country"
bull spin
It's Cons utionally secular country that happens to have a lot of Christians.
It's [sic] Cons utionally secular country whose population reflects a large, Christian majority.
fify
This is one of those horrible situations where our hearts wish that there was a way to legally outlaw this obvious breach of common decency by the Phelps people.
But, we also know intellectually that to give in to our hearts is to deny the most fundamental rights of our forefathers and the thousands of men (and women) who have given their lives to defend our cons utional right to be assholes of the first order.
We simply cannot deny Phelps the right to be the pubic asshole that he is, and to have his supporters defend that.
Wh, you are such a creative thinker...can you come up with an effective method of 'putting down the Phelps crowd without forfeiting the freedom of speech that the rest of us enjoy and that he and his ilk are abusing?
The 1st Amendment was not created so this dirt bag can go and attack private citizens like this. If anything this is an invasion of privacy.
Maybe that is an argument that can be made. Off the top of my head, I would guess that folks would suggest that if the funeral was in a 'public arena', i.e. a public cemetery...the privacy argument won't hold...but hey, it's worth a shot...
Is there such thing as a public cemetery?
"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said.
Beats me. Isn't there?
I mean, where my dad's family is from, there are church cemeteries, and I think that some of the other church cemeteries are private, so I guess I always assumed there were.
But, you're probably right. I guess a 'municipal' or even 'military' cemetery is, by definition, public. Good point.
Blake, it seems that people can't read. Both you and I have tried several times make many in this thread aware of the fact that the protesters were in a public place, not private. They were not at the cemetery they were nearby in an adjacent public park. Any discussion of the rights that one has on private property doesn't have any bearing on this case. Oh well, I guess it will just be our little secret.
I was starting to think I was on ignore
Terrible situation, but at least we know the group isn't exactly growing...it's dying like every other religious en y, they just happen to be more vocal than most. They are the ultimate RL trolls, but the irony is that they are protected by the very people they troll.
The members get a lot of prank calls too, if they haven't changed their numbers by now there's places where you can find the the numbers to "peacefully" troll them back.
"alright, we got a broken window!"
Not that violence and attempts to inflict injury on people is funny. However, trolls must be able and willing to deal with the consequences of their actions when this subject clearly boils human emotions, sometimes to the point of physical action.
Maybe.
Social disapprobation. Contrary assholes of the first order, hounding WBC like they hound others.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
