Fred Phelps & all members of the WBC are totally gay

[Osensitive1]

No one wants to discuss who really upset this family, who is drawing the lines of connection between protestor and protest, and where lies the source of this groups influence? Some conversations are like pulling teeth here. Not sure if it's an unfamiliarity or chopped liver effect.

[Herman's Hermits]

I take that you're unable to answer.

If you are American, it's reasonable for me to assume you would understand the First Amendment and you would not of asked the questions you asked. Unfortunately, you don't understand the First Amendment, if you did, you wouldn't of bothered asking those question because they're ridiculously stupid.

I ask you, how are the WBC members interfering with these people religious beliefs? They're not doing anything that's preventing or keeping anyone from practicing their religion. They're not preventing anyone's right to assemble. They're not trampling on anyone's rights. Protesting and yelling at people doesn't prevent others from doing anything. The WBC have the right to Free Speech and the right to assemble. The Constitution doesn't state that Free Speech be unoffensive or in good taste. The First Amendment forbids the government from censoring people.

You and others on here seem to approve of censorship because you don't approve of what these people are doing. I don't understand this group thinking that appears to go on here.

I doubt you're going to write an intelligent response. Most likely you'll write something similar to you previous response. But, maybe you'll prove me wrong and write something halfway intelligent.

If something they were doing impacted you, you would be pissed off about it.

Stoning and killing people IS limiting their rights in case that point was lost on you.

The WBC doesn't stone people, they yell at people and hold up signs displaying that "god hates fags." I have no idea where you're getting the idea that the WBC members stone people. You should reread the previous comments and then try to explain your point.

Callaway wrote on here that she believes the WBC members should be stoned because the WBC members protest funerals and say offensive things.

[Callaway]

I take that you're unable to answer.

If you are American, it's reasonable for me to assume you would understand the First Amendment and you would not of asked the questions you asked. Unfortunately, you don't understand the First Amendment, if you did, you wouldn't of bothered asking those question because they're ridiculously stupid.

I ask you, how are the WBC members interfering with these people religious beliefs? They're not doing anything that's preventing or keeping anyone from practicing their religion. They're not preventing anyone's right to assemble. They're not trampling on anyone's rights. Protesting and yelling at people doesn't prevent others from doing anything. The WBC have the right to Free Speech and the right to assemble. The Constitution doesn't state that Free Speech be unoffensive or in good taste. The First Amendment forbids the government from censoring people.

You and others on here seem to approve of censorship because you don't approve of what these people are doing. I don't understand this group thinking that appears to go on here.

I doubt you're going to write an intelligent response. Most likely you'll write something similar to you previous response. But, maybe you'll prove me wrong and write something halfway intelligent.

If something they were doing impacted you, you would be pissed off about it.

Stoning and killing people IS limiting their rights in case that point was lost on you.

The WBC doesn't stone people, they yell at people and hold up signs displaying that "god hates fags." I have no idea where you're getting the idea that the WBC members stone people. You should reread the previous comments and then try to explain your point.

Callaway wrote on here that she believes the WBC members should be stoned because the WBC members protest funerals and say offensive things.

Actually, what I wrote is that if anyone deserves stoning, it's them.  I think picketing people's funerals goes beyond constitutionally protected free speech particularly when they shout despicable things to the mourners and carry signs targeted to the deceased person and to bereaved family members.

I think that you are the one who is having difficulty understanding the First Amendment.  Freedom of speech is not absolutely protected in all circumstances and Phlexor's question wasn't stupid at all.  I think he's right.

These people who died and their mourners aren't public figures and the bereaved have constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and the right to peaceably assemble.  The WBC picketers did interfere with their constitutionally protected rights to bury their loved one in accordance with their religion in a private funeral.  Fred Phelps's whole purpose in going was to disrupt the funeral and he requested police protection because he planned on the confrontation becoming violent.  Matthew Snyder's funeral procession had to be rerouted and the Catholic school associated with the church where the funeral was held also had to be put into lockdown because of the WBC.  The WBC protesters carried signs that said, "Pope in Hell" "Matt in Hell" "You're Going to Hell" "God Hates You" and "Semper Fi Fags" which targeted Matthew Snyder personally as a Catholic and as a Marine and interfered with his right to be buried in peace.

[Herman's Hermits]

I take that you're unable to answer.

If you are American, it's reasonable for me to assume you would understand the First Amendment and you would not of asked the questions you asked. Unfortunately, you don't understand the First Amendment, if you did, you wouldn't of bothered asking those question because they're ridiculously stupid.

I ask you, how are the WBC members interfering with these people religious beliefs? They're not doing anything that's preventing or keeping anyone from practicing their religion. They're not preventing anyone's right to assemble. They're not trampling on anyone's rights. Protesting and yelling at people doesn't prevent others from doing anything. The WBC have the right to Free Speech and the right to assemble. The Constitution doesn't state that Free Speech be unoffensive or in good taste. The First Amendment forbids the government from censoring people.

You and others on here seem to approve of censorship because you don't approve of what these people are doing. I don't understand this group thinking that appears to go on here.

I doubt you're going to write an intelligent response. Most likely you'll write something similar to you previous response. But, maybe you'll prove me wrong and write something halfway intelligent.

If something they were doing impacted you, you would be pissed off about it.

Stoning and killing people IS limiting their rights in case that point was lost on you.

The WBC doesn't stone people, they yell at people and hold up signs displaying that "god hates fags." I have no idea where you're getting the idea that the WBC members stone people. You should reread the previous comments and then try to explain your point.

Callaway wrote on here that she believes the WBC members should be stoned because the WBC members protest funerals and say offensive things.

Actually, what I wrote is that if anyone deserves stoning, it's them.  I think picketing people's funerals goes beyond constitutionally protected free speech particularly when they shout despicable things to the mourners and carry signs targeted to the deceased person and to bereaved family members.

Tough shit. What you think doesn't matter.

I think that you are the one who is having difficulty understanding the First Amendment.  Freedom of speech is not absolutely protected in all circumstances and Phlexor's question wasn't stupid at all.  I think he's right.

You're right, I don't understand the First Amendment and neither do the courts. Thank goodness for Callaway. LOL

Hate to break it to you, but what the WBC members are doing is protected by the First Amendment and the courts seem to agree with me.

These people who died and their mourners aren't public figures and the bereaved have constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and the right to peaceably assemble.  The WBC picketers did interfere with their constitutionally protected rights to bury their loved one in accordance with their religion in a private funeral.

The courts disagree with you. 

Fred Phelps's whole purpose in going was to disrupt the funeral and he requested police protection because he planned on the confrontation becoming violent.  Matthew Snyder's funeral procession had to be rerouted and the Catholic school associated with the church where the funeral was held also had to be put into lockdown because of the WBC.  The WBC protesters carried signs that said, "Pope in Hell" "Matt in Hell" "You're Going to Hell" "God Hates You" and "Semper Fi Fags" which targeted Matthew Snyder personally as a Catholic and as a Marine and interfered with his right to be buried in peace.

Since when do the people in the US have the "right to be buried in peace?"

All in all, you just repeated what you stated earlier. Nothing new. You don't need to inform me on what the signs say that the WBC members have.

Offensive speech is protected by the First Amendment. I don't understand why it is so hard for some of you people on here to understand that. What did they teach you in school?

[punkdrew]

I agree with HH. Fred and his kids et.al. have the right to say anything they want. And I have the right to mock them, call them "very proper Charlies," and imply that they protest too much because they are the very thing they seem to abhor. The worst things you can do to terrorists are mock them or ignore them. Since the US gov't hasn't the sense to do either, I'm willing to take a few spare moments here and there to give my take on the situation.

And it all started as a joke, when I realized that if you removed the text from their signs, the signs themselves would be indistinguishable from any that you'd see at a gay pride rally.

[skyblue1]

I agree with HH. Fred and his kids et.al. have the right to say anything they want. And I have the right to mock them, call them "very proper Charlies," and imply that they protest too much because they are the very thing they seem to abhor. The worst things you can do to terrorists are mock them or ignore them. Since the US gov't hasn't the sense to do either, I'm willing to take a few spare moments here and there to give my take on the situation.

And it all started as a joke, when I realized that if you removed the text from their signs, the signs themselves would be indistinguishable from any that you'd see at a gay pride rally.

or a Tea Party rally

[Scrapheap]

That hasn't been decided yet, the case is going to the supreme court.

As of right now, the First Amendment guarantees these people the right to assemble, protest, and yell at people attending funerals.

No you fucktard, it's a local statute that is protecting them. 

The Supreme Court did agree to hear the case and they have not ruled. Therefore, it is still perfectly legal for these people to do what they're are doing.

No, the legality of what they did is being disputed, if they do it again the can be charged.

Taking a case to the Supreme Court doesn't automatically put the law or subject at hand into limbo.

  R U srysly dat stoopid?? If you're taking a case to the supreme court, it means the issue is still being litigated. The law IS in limbo untill the supreme court decides.

[Squidusa]

I'd like to line all members of this church up against a wall and shoot them all with a machine gun personally. 

Squiddy does have a dark side. 

[Osensitive1]

No one wants to discuss who really upset this family, who is drawing the lines of connection between protestor and protest, and where lies the source of this groups influence? Some conversations are like pulling teeth here. Not sure if it's an unfamiliarity or chopped liver effect.

Wah, no one wanted to talk to the noob.

[Callaway]

I'd like to line all members of this church up against a wall and shoot them all with a machine gun personally. 

Squiddy does have a dark side. 

I guess I was wrong about the Supreme Court, since they upheld their right to protest 8 -  1.

I think that some vocal protesters need to picket Fred Phelps's funeral.

[Osensitive1]

In the case before the Supreme Court, the protestors were far enough away that the family never saw or heard them and found out about it when they saw the news. Why isn't freedom of the press also under attack? It's all the same amendment.

[Callaway]

No one wants to discuss who really upset this family, who is drawing the lines of connection between protestor and protest, and where lies the source of this groups influence? Some conversations are like pulling teeth here. Not sure if it's an unfamiliarity or chopped liver effect.

Wah, no one wanted to talk to the noob.

I didn't know how to answer this then and I still don't know how to answer it now.

Are you saying that it's really the news media's fault for covering the loonies protesting at funerals?

[Squidusa]

I'd like to line all members of this church up against a wall and shoot them all with a machine gun personally. 

Squiddy does have a dark side. 

I guess I was wrong about the Supreme Court, since they upheld their right to protest 8 -  1.

I think that some vocal protesters need to picket Fred Phelps's funeral.

Better yet.

Hold up a sign saying "FREE BBQ" 

[Osensitive1]

Are you saying that it's really the news media's fault for covering the loonies protesting at funerals?

Not really, just saying no one would even know who they are or what they do, or care what they think, if not for the media's fascination. What's more harmful, the group spouting hate, or the group who shares it with the world? Don't have issues with the media; more thinking out loud, really. Am very pro free speech, and easily refrain form the news.

["couldbecousin"]

No one wants to discuss who really upset this family, who is drawing the lines of connection between protestor and protest, and where lies the source of this groups influence? Some conversations are like pulling teeth here. Not sure if it's an unfamiliarity or chopped liver effect.

Wah, no one wanted to talk to the noob.

 Poor little fleur! But you persisted!