Snyder v. Phelps Decided

[MobBoss]

We gauge things by the number of members of facebook groups now?

No, your're the one attempting the off topic crap about Muslims, not me. I was simply pointing out that you can certainly find christians against Fred Phelps and the WBC if you actually open your eyes and look.

 

[Formaldehyde]

And that, my friends, is propaganda. They were 'bothered by it' actually about 10 years prior to them starting to protest military funerals.

Got any "proof" to support your wacky propaganda?

If you are so opposed to gays being persecuted by homophobes, why do you still support DADT?

Why haven't you spoken up against rampant homophobia in this forum?

Why haven't you spoken out against Republican politicians who are quite homophobic and even quite hypocritical about it after being caught in acts of homosexuality themselves? And why do you occasionally even defend them in this forum?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

We gauge things by the number of members of facebook groups now? Then how about this?

So cowboys are pushing Christians and Muslims apart? Maybe the shadowy figure is supposed to represent GWB?

 

[MobBoss]

Got any "proof" to support your wacky propaganda?

Sure. WBC hits the national spotlight and digusts the entire nation in 1998 picketing the funeral of hate crime victim Mathew Sheppard. Its first military funeral protest wasnt until mid 2005 with the real nasty stuff not starting until 2006.

Thats not wacky propaganda...thats just the simple historical fact of the matter.

If you are so opposed to gays being persecuted by homophobes, why do you still support DADT?

Because thats not persecution and I agree with the reasons DADT was implemented.

Why haven't you spoken up against rampant homophobia in this forum?

I have, unfortunately my definition of homophobia isnt the same as yours and a few others around here.

Why haven't you spoken out against politicians who are quite homophobic and occasionally even defend them in this forum?

See above.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

No, your're the one attempting the off topic crap, not me. I was simply pointing out that you can certainly find christians against Fred Phelps and the WBC if you actually open your eyes and look.

Your're not going to respond to the group I posted? By you're logic, there are more people who love their fellow Abrahamic followers than hate they're own extremists. I doubt those who love they're fellow support those of they're own who use tactics such as Westboro or Al Qaeda.

Nice crap talk, though. Do you feel moderate Christians have a responsibility to make sure I know their against Westboro?

 

[Mark1031]

Good! Anybody that argues against freedom of expression should be shot on sight.

Nice attempt at irony but that speech is protected even though it makes some vague general argument for violence as it is not an imminent or specific threat.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Thats not wacky propaganda...thats just the simple historical fact of the matter.

Nobody in the US really cared much at all about the WBC until they started protesting at military funerals, much less the fundamentalist reactionaries who share many of their same views. To claim anything else is disingenuous at best. Claiming it is "simple historical fact" is an outright falsehood.

 

[civver_764]

The court made the right decision. I'm surprised by the responses in this thread tbh.

 

[NetGear]

R

I wonder, would Phelps be in favor non-fundies protesting the death of a WBC members with signs saying "That God for Dead Bigots"?

Well they believe any bad events are retribution from god. That's why soldiers are being picketed. Their death is proof to them that they are not favored by god.

So.... I can't wait for phelps to get cancer so I can picket him on his way to his chemo session.

 

[NickyJ]

Yes, I know it is... though I don't think a broad based hate speech amendment would pass. I think a narrowly defined amendment which protected funerals would have less trouble becoming a new amendment. Virtually everyone in this country hates the WBC.

I agree. By all means, people should be able to protest. But I think that there are certain times and places where there shouldn't be protests. (i.e. funerals)

In case you missed it the first time:

It certainly wouldn't be "illegal" in this country to protest. They demanded their "rights" even though they apparently didn't even exist at the time, and still don't.

How can you approve their protests and be so opposed to these? Shouldn't Americans, and even Canadians, have the same "rights" you apparently find so vital for Egyptians to have?

Alright then. Here is why: The Egyptians weren't protesting during their troops' funerals. Got any other ideas about why we're so horrible to want to designate "quiet times"?

So how about you? Do you think Americans deserve their rights to be protected under their own Constitution, as the Supremes have ruled 8-1? Or do you think that just pertains to those living in foreign countries which you are apparently even willing to invade to protect?

To be brief, I don't really care if our policies aren't agreed with by other countries. I only go with what I think is right.

I believe that any group, however odious, has the right to be public about their views, but don't necessarily have the right to have access to their intended audience.

Agreed.

 

[MobBoss]

The court made the right decision. I'm surprised by the responses in this thread tbh.

Why? I think its just apparent that a lot of people think the WBC has taken it too far and crossed the line into harassement.

 

[NickyJ]

Why? I think its just apparent that a lot of people think the WBC has taken it too far and crossed the line into harassement.

Exactly. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm a staunch opponent to homosexuality, and I support protests against it. But there are times and places where the protests shouldn't be, such as funerals, and especially during the funerals for troops that gave their lives to defend the protesters. Again, I oppose homosexuals in every shape and form, but borderline harassment is not the way to oppose it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I agree. By all means, people should be able to protest. But I think that there are certain times and places where there shouldn't be protests. (i.e. funerals).

Did you miss the part where there actually was no visible protest at this funeral. That they were peacefully assembled 1000 ft away? That the person whiled filed the legal complaint didn't even know WBC was even in the vicinity until it was over?

I only go with what I think is right.

You do realize your own government supported those who were "wrong" here. Right?

That they apparently even tortured and murdered 60-70 of GWB's own victims. Right?

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Ditto. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm a staunch opponent to homosexuality, and I support protests against it.

How can you protest a very vague idea?

But there are times and places where the protests shouldn't be, such as funerals, and especially during the funerals for troops that gave their lives to defend the protesters.

The war they're dying in isn't about defending us.

Again, I oppose homosexuals in every shape and form, but borderline harassment is not the way to oppose it.

I'd say protesting homosexuality is borderline harassment to those people you're protesting against.

Seems the qualifier here though is it involves the military.

 

[BasketCase]

Do you agree with the decision or disagree?

Disagree completely. Phelps is a %*&@#ing douchebag. (Can I say "douchebag" on here, seeing as how the filter didn't block it? )

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'd say protesting homosexuality is borderline harassment to those people you're protesting against.

Indeed. And if frequently steps over that boundary to even become assault with a deadly weapon and murder.

At least NickyJ confirmed my premise of what many reactionaries who oppose this decision actually think. This isn't about WBC protests against gays which bother them as Mobboss falsely claimed. Many of them actually support that aspect, at least privately. It is the fact they are now protesting at military funerals which obviously bothers them so much.

Because thats not persecution and I agree with the reasons DADT was implemented.

No matter how you try to rationalize it, you still support the homophobic persecution of gays by the military. It is a heinous and reprehensible act which is finally coming to an end. Many true patriots had their professional lives ruined by rampant bigotry in the military.

I have, unfortunately my definition of homophobia isnt the same as yours and a few others around here.

I think your frequent defense of these blatant homophobes shows quite clearly what your real opinions are.

 

[civver_764]

Why? I think its just apparent that a lot of people think the WBC has taken it too far and crossed the line into harassement.

To the point that the government has to step in? I don't think so. It sets an incredibly bad precedent.

 

[civver_764]

Again, I oppose homosexuals in every shape and form,

You just like being on the wrong side of everything, don't you?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Not everything. NickyJ apparently does respect the rights of the families of the victims our our absurd wars, even though he apparently doesn't mind one bit if there are far more of them in the future...

 

[MobBoss]

No matter how you try to rationalize it, you still support the homophobic persecution of gays by the military.

In every, single case where I have been involved in a admin sep case for homosexuality, it was done as a request from the soldier involved and certainly not persecution.

So, I simply disagree with you on your allegation. The point being there is nothing I can offer, no matter how rational or logical that would make you see it any other way than how you desire to see it. /shrug.

It is a heinous and reprehensible act which is finally coming to an end. Many true patriots had their professional lives ruined by rampant bigotry in the military.

Some few, maybe. Many? No. Probably not even a majority, as I pointed out a lot of such admin separations were initiated by the soldiers themselves as a vehicle to exit the military.

Guess what? Leaving the military isnt an end to your life either. And as I will be retiring in the next few years, I am glad thats a fact.

I think your frequent defense of these blatant homophobes shows quite clearly what your real opinions are.

Rofl, I think your blatent appeal to emotion and lack of impartiality does likewise.

To the point that the government has to step in? I don't think so. It sets an incredibly bad precedent.

Ah....the government didnt step in per se....this was merely the final resting stop as part of a civil lawsuit.....

Are you saying people shouldnt pursue litigation if they feel harassed?