114 replies to this topic

[elder]

I firmly believe the answer to this is what I've written previously...people putting themselves between the WBC assholes and mourners.

What people? You and me, or the police, or who?
Are you saying we need protestors to protest the protestors? Where does that stop?

Again, in trying to picture myself in this situation, where I am at a funeral and being harrassed (sorry TASB, sticks and stones yeah yeah, but tell me you'd be able to grieve in peace if protestors were making a scene at your loved ones funeral) the options are 1. to ignore them (MUCH easier said than done, maybe impossible), 2. get in between them and the procession (can't see how that doesn't end up bad), or 3. have the cops remove them.

I honestly don't want to hear about rights and laws anymore. This is common sense and decency. Fuck your right to protest and say what you want. There are limits.

[Java Time]

I was thinking earlier how the perception is similar to the way a portion of society perceives women.

what like "women can't understand how men can actually be sitting down quietly and actually not be thinking of anything and women start an argument calling men liars as they must be thinking of another women if they can't tell them what they are thinking because nothing is not a suitable response"...

like that portion of society?!? there outta be a law against this

[elder]

Damn! You dragged me back over here to the P&R forum. I hate this fucking forum

[Java Time]

What people? You and me, or the police, or who?
Are you saying we need protestors to protest the protestors? Where does that stop?

Again, in trying to picture myself in this situation, where I am at a funeral and being harrassed (sorry TASB, sticks and stones yeah yeah, but tell me you'd be able to grieve in peace if protestors were making a scene at your loved ones funeral) the options are 1. to ignore them (MUCH easier said than done, maybe impossible), 2. get in between them and the procession (can't see how that doesn't end up bad), or 3. have the cops remove them.

I honestly don't want to hear about rights and laws anymore. This is common sense and decency. Fuck your right to protest and say what you want. There are limits.

this^^^

unfortunately we as a society prove time and time again we can't handle our rights responsibly without some intervention.

[Tim the Beek]

Are you saying we need protestors to protest the protestors? Where does that stop?

It's worked pretty well in the past. Groups of students, bikers, etc., shielding the funeral goers from the WBC "people."

I honestly don't want to hear about rights and laws anymore. This is common sense and decency. Fuck your right to protest and say what you want. There are limits.

We're just not going to agree. I greatly value common sense and decency. But I value even more the protections we have in place ot be able to convey our opinions, however unpopular. Without that right, we'd be living under tyranny, IMO. It's easy to say let's just protect popular, majority opinions, but I think minority opinions are the ones most needing of protection.

[TakeAStepBack]

Oh, dear. We've jumped the shark.

If we're "fucking" other people's right, then I suppose that there are no inalienable ones in the first place. Which means anythign kind of goes. If we're talking strictly about decency, if there were no rights, these morans would have been shot and buried long ago and this discussion would be over before it started.

Someone pass the forage and watch out for the electric fence while you do it.

[TEO]

Baaaa

[elder]

It's worked pretty well in the past. Groups of students, bikers, etc., shielding the funeral goers from the WBC "people."

We're just not going to agree. I greatly value common sense and decency. But I value even more the protections we have in place ot be able to convey our opinions, however unpopular. Without that right, we'd be living under tyranny, IMO. It's easy to say let's just protect popular, majority opinions, but I think minority opinions are the ones most needing of protection.

So let me ask you then, what should be the protocol here? Can I find these groups who put themselves between other groups openly in the yellow pages/interwebs? Do I need to hire them or are they volunteers? What if they are not available all the time (there are after all multiple funerals per day everywhere). What then?

I have the right to hold a funeral, no? And I have the right to do so without being bullied, no? What about my rights and protection?

You can see that if the answer is that I myself need to be the go between, then how do we prevent the violence that will no doubt occurr?

Better yet, what if you are me? And these groups aren't available to protect your right to grieve without harrassment? Now you are obviously not as violent a person as me (I wish I was more like you on this, trust me) but what would you do? What if you could not ignore them? Would you walk up to them and ask them politley to stop? What if they told you go fuck yourself? What then?

Right, you have a situation on your hands. One that may have been prevented with a little common sense...and set limits.

[TEO]

Would you rather have a ring of law enforcement officials outside the funeral of your loved one? What if one of them gave some of your family inappropriate sneers or glances?

[elder]

Would you rather have a ring of law enforcement officials outside the funeral of your loved one? What if one of them gave some of your family inappropriate sneers or glances?

If my family needed protection from harrassment, absolutely.

If then someone in law enforcement or the miltary acted inappropriately, then they and their organization would be held accountable for their actions.

Protestors would/are not.

[Tim the Beek]

Well, first of all, T, I'd ask you to show me where in the Constitution and its Amendments there's a "right to grieve without harrassment."

I would like very much for the families of fallen servicepeople not to be subjected to WBC's ugly message. But, as I see it, facts are facts. You're putting an unprotected "right" up against a right which is not only protected in Amendment I, but has a bunch of case law protecting it as well.

The answer to this, then, isn't passing a law. It's trying to amend the Constitution. That's what I think folks who are so aggrieved by this should be doing.

And by my understanding, the folks who have counterprotested the WBC crowd have shown up, voluntarily.

[TEO]

Yeah aren't our "rights" something about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The right to life being the only fundamental one. That right itself comes under heavy debate as to beginning and end.

[Java Time]

If we're "fucking" other people's right, then I suppose that there are no inalienable ones in the first place.

definitely agree...I wouldn't want the looneys, if performing a truly peaceful protest that wouldn't be disruptive to the mourners having their rights infringed upon (unlike the manner that they actually protest)...

I don't necessarily agree with the 200 - 300 ft distance 2hrs before and after a funeral as part of the law as that would be the time it's not infringing on the funeral ceremonies at those times...

I just don't know how else this type of behavior can be quashed without a law

does the HAV act expire?

[Joker]

As much as they suck, they have the right to voice their opinion just like anyone else.

It's a little strange seeing some of those who were calling for tolerance and the protection of the rights of others during the Chick-fil-A fiasco now in favor of no tolerance for these people's rights.

[elder]

Well, first of all, T, I'd ask you to show me where in the Constitution and its Amendments there's a "right to grieve without harrassment."

I would like very much for the families of fallen servicepeople not to be subjected to WBC's ugly message. But, as I see it, facts are facts. You're putting an unprotected "right" up against a right which is not only protected in Amendment I, but has a bunch of case law protecting it as well.

The answer to this, then, isn't passing a law. It's trying to amend the Constitution. That's what I think folks who are so aggrieved by this should be doing.

And by my understanding, the folks who have counterprotested the WBC crowd have shown up, voluntarily.

Thanks TtB. I admittedly don't know shit about actual laws, rights, nor the constitution. I mean to me, these are things written by men, with their own motives, some from way back when when we still had slaves. So personally, it can all be thrown out the window.

I also don't have answers for most of the questions I asked you. As I said I'm really just trying to put myself in others shoes here and figure out what I would do or need to do.

I understand the slippery slope. Maybe the answer is to simply hire security, or if possible engage these go between groups that you mention before hand so that they are there? I don't know, but I think we are in agreement on most of this.

Thanks man!

[Julius]

As much as they suck, they have the right to voice their opinion just like anyone else.

It's a little strange seeing some of those who were calling for tolerance and the protection of the rights of others during the Chick-fil-A fiasco now in favor of no tolerance for these people's rights.

The great hypocrisy of liberalism. So true. This is why I can never identify with being "liberal" because you only have rights for as long as they agree with your message.

[TEO]

There is a thought, hire security! Thinking about what funeral homes charge as it is, I can only imagine them jumping on such a profit center.

[elder]

As much as they suck, they have the right to voice their opinion just like anyone else.

It's a little strange seeing some of those who were calling for tolerance and the protection of the rights of others during the Chick-fil-A fiasco now in favor of no tolerance for these people's rights.

Oh pipe down Asshole.
You love getting my panties all in a bunch don't you?

[Joker]

I can't honestly say I don't enjoy it

[Java Time]

Well, first of all, T, I'd ask you to show me where in the Constitution and its Amendments there's a "right to grieve without harrassment."

I would like very much for the families of fallen servicepeople not to be subjected to WBC's ugly message. But, as I see it, facts are facts. You're putting an unprotected "right" up against a right which is not only protected in Amendment I, but has a bunch of case law protecting it as well.

The answer to this, then, isn't passing a law. It's trying to amend the Constitution. That's what I think folks who are so aggrieved by this should be doing.

And by my understanding, the folks who have counterprotested the WBC crowd have shown up, voluntarily.

certain inalienable rights...now we have rights that supercede other rights?!? then we do have to make laws and amendment changes


...holy shit dude where's the love and schmoop?!?

[Tim the Beek]

certain inalienable rights...now we have rights that supercede other rights?!? then we do have to make laws and amendment changes


...holy shit dude where's the love and schmoop?!?

Love and schmoop are here. More than ever.

Boardies makes me smile. I loves 'em. And that china cat? She's the love of my life.

But I ain't completely about the schmoop.

Isn't the argument folks have been making against the WBC whackadoos just that - that people's rights to an uninterrupted funeral trump parts of Amendment I?

And btw, I'm groovin' on how civil this conversation has been, by and large. It's a touchy issue...

[Joker]

Yeah, when I came back and it was moved over here I figured it had to have taken a turn for the worse but I didn't really see anything to warrant the move.












(other than Elder being a whiny little bitch)

[TakeAStepBack]

The great hypocrisy of liberalism. So true. This is why I can never identify with being "liberal" because you only have rights for as long as they agree with your message.

LOLberals,

[Tim the Beek]

...but I didn't really see anything to warrant the move.

You mean other than the fact that it's a thread about a law which Congress passed and the President signed, targeted at members of a church?

[elder]

Yeah, when I came back and it was moved over here I figured it had to have taken a turn for the worse but I didn't really see anything to warrant the move.












(other than Elder being a whiny little bitch)

Speak up! Did you say something Mumbles?

[Joker]

You mean other than the fact that it's a thread about a law which Congress passed and the President signed, targeted at members of a church?

Well yeah I guess if you're going to put it THAT way

[deadheadskier]

Just want to throw out another example where freedom of speech rights end. In a place of employment, you can't say whatever you want to whomever you want without putting yourself at risk of being terminated.

Sorry, I just don't think were all going to get lubed up and fall out of our freedom chairs if law prohibits hate protests at a funeral.

[Tim the Beek]

DHS - that's not, to me, the same as government restricting your ability to speak in a public place. Not even close, really.

[deadheadskier]

DHS - that's not, to me, the same as government restricting your ability to speak in a public place. Not even close, really.

Depending on how you view freedom of speech the workplace example I set forth is in some ways worse than the government making restrictions in a public place. It's a private place a business. What if the owner decides you know what, I think my employees should be able to say whatever the heck they want to one another here and if they don't like it, they can find another job. It's my property, I should be allowed to do and say as I want. Government says no.

So you have that and the anti-bullying laws I earlier described as two situations where people are restricted in what they can say in certain places. I don't feel that expanding such restrictions to include funerals as being off limits as that big of a deal. The WBC has plenty of other places they can spread their vitriol.

[TakeAStepBack]

So the government owns the public lands?

I guess we're really getting to the heart of the matter now. We're the cattle for the largest, and I might add only authorised use of force in the country, corporation - the government.

Because otherwise you're arguing your right to infringe on someone elses right of private property. Where private property starts, your rights end based on consent of the use of their land. If it is true in this case, then it is true abotu the above. The government owns the land. You don't have anythign but a vote to try and speak your piece. You're not protected fromt he mob rule. You have no rights.

[deadheadskier]

[TakeAStepBack]

I wouldn't bother to panic now if you haven't already. You not only consent to this agreement, you encourage it.

[deadheadskier]

yup, I'm a commy bastard because I don't have an issue with the government restricting hate protests at a funeral.

[Depends]

It's a little strange seeing some of those who were calling for tolerance and the protection of the rights of others during the Chick-fil-A fiasco now in favor of no tolerance for these people's rights.

WTF are you talking about? Chick Fil A fiasco was nothing about freedom of speech. As you know, freedom of speech means that the government has no right to stop you from saying anything. No one stopped Mr Cathy from saying anything. The 1st Amendment says nothing about how people react to what you say. CHick Fil A was never about freedom of speech, or freedom of religion. It was entirely about the freedom to spend (or not spend) your money if you do not agree with the company's pwners beliefs.


FTR. I agree 100% that WBC has the right to say/protest all they want. That is bad news for the grieving families, but it is their right. What I don't understand is how/why they do it...

[TakeAStepBack]

yup, I'm a commy bastard because I don't have an issue with the government restricting hate protests at a funeral.

Is that what I said?

I mean, there are yoga masters the world over impressed with this stretch, brahnold. I hope you didn't pull anything.

[Tim the Beek]

yup, I'm a commy bastard because I don't have an issue with the government restricting hate protests at a funeral.

That's not why you're a commie bastard. That's not the reason at all.

Really hope to see you in Greenfield in a month.

[Java Time]

That's not why you're a commie bastard. That's not the reason at all.

Really hope to see you in Greenfield in a month...COMMIE!!!

fixed

[Joker]

As much as they suck, they have the right to voice their opinion just like anyone else.

It's a little strange seeing some of those who were calling for tolerance and the protection of the rights of others during the Chick-fil-A fiasco now in favor of no tolerance for these people's rights.

WTF are you talking about? Chick Fil A fiasco was nothing about freedom of speech. As you know, freedom of speech means that the government has no right to stop you from saying anything. No one stopped Mr Cathy from saying anything. The 1st Amendment says nothing about how people react to what you say. CHick Fil A was never about freedom of speech, or freedom of religion. It was entirely about the freedom to spend (or not spend) your money if you do not agree with the company's pwners beliefs.


FTR. I agree 100% that WBC has the right to say/protest all they want. That is bad news for the grieving families, but it is their right. What I don't understand is how/why they do it...

I'm talking about people standing up to protect the rights of others while labeling those who disagreed with them as intolerant (in the case Chick-fil-A it was the rights of gays to "marry") now showing no tolerance towards the WBC and advocating for the taking away of their right to freedom of speech

[PeaceFrog]

they have the right to say whatever they want.

They don't have the right to an unruly and disrespectful protest.

I don't see the problem with funerals being a safe haven from politics and protestation.

Unless it's Rush Limbaugh's funeral. Fuck that fat bastard.

[Tim the Beek]

Just stoppin' in to reiterate that I believe shielding the minority from the majority is really important, no matter how fucked up the minority is...

[Depends]

O really don't understand what WBC believes they accomplish by doing what they do. It must cost them a pretty penny to fly all over. There was a rumor that they hoped for some sort of fight, where they could sue, but I don't think that has happened more than once.

Do they really think someone attending the funeral will say " Hey my (brother/sister/dad/mom/cousin) died, and it's because God hates fags"

I'm serious, they have every right to say what they wish, as long as they don't commit libel or slander, but what do they intend to accomplish?

[Joker]

I'd think it'd have to be the publicity while also hoping to get in a lawsuit or two.

[Java Time]

just stopping by to wonder...

I wonder if when the first law making murder a crime... if citizens were up in arms about their rights being taken away?

our rights have been infringed upon since day 1 of human life and goverments and as we humans keep doing things that exploit rights in a negative light new laws will be enacted.

we do this to ourselves; just because we can doesn't mean we should

[PeaceFrog]

Is being able to protest at a funeral really a right worth fighting over?

seriously... I don't think it is. what about a funeral in and of itself is there to protest? I believe there are more appropriate venues unless you're actually protesting against burial in favor of cremation or something.

choosing to protest at a funeral is blatantly disrespectful and unruly, and not protected by the constitution.

[TEO]

It wouldn't be if folks could remember (even in the midst of their grief) that the words and actions of other's are a reflection on them.

[MeOmYo]

and not protected by the constitution.

you're wrong

[elder]

You won't have to worry about my funeral, because I'm not having one.
I want a party thrown in my honor.

Try and protest a party.

[TEO]

Sorry 4 partyin' ?

[Java Time]

You won't have to worry about my funeral, because I'm not having one.
I want a party thrown in my honor.

Try and protest a party.

I want a funeral and I want Protestors...



























as long as those fuckers are protesting my death


Booo...Boooo-hisss...bring Java back to life it's ungodly for Java to be dead...Pull a Jesus Java...pull a Jesus*!!!


















* Sorry God, sorry Jesus...just kidding and in no way am I using your names in vain...just using 'em for a joke

[PeaceFrog]

you're wrong

if it were that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The assumption is that if a person or group chooses to protest a funeral, they are choosing to be disruptive, and therefore the assembly is NOT peaceful. Therefore, it is not protected by the constitution.

Anyone has the right to say anything they want, but just like anything in life there are certain parameters. You don't have the right to say it anywhere you want.