Jump to content

Interesting Lawsuit


Recommended Posts

http://www.kansas.com/2010/03/09/1216512/p...-go-before.htmlProtesters spouting hate messages attended a gay serviceman's funeral claiming God killed him. Father sued and won 5 million. Appeals court overturned and ordered fatehr to pay their legal fees. Heading to the supreme court.Is a funeral a public event giving the protesters the right to picket under free speech? Is it free speech or a hate attack? Does God hate gays? What would you do if you were the father? Should gays be in the military?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is a funeral a public event giving the protesters the right to picket under free speech?
It's a private event, but they have a right to protest outside of the grounds.
Is it free speech or a hate attack?
Both.
Does God hate gays?
If there is a god, I seriously doubt it.
What would you do if you were the father?
I think suing is a decent idea...I don't see any other way to punish the people for being ignorant pricks. Or maybe start protesting the funerals of any people that have ever been involved in that kind of hate group. But if I really was the father I'd just get really pissed and then realize people that stupid should just be ignored.
Should gays be in the military?
Yes.
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.kansas.com/2010/03/09/1216512/p...-go-before.htmlProtesters spouting hate messages attended a gay serviceman's funeral claiming God killed him. Father sued and won 5 million. Appeals court overturned and ordered fatehr to pay their legal fees. Heading to the supreme court.Is a funeral a public event giving the protesters the right to picket under free speech? Is it free speech or a hate attack? Does God hate gays? What would you do if you were the father? Should gays be in the military?
Tough to legislate bad taste and manners. As I understand it God hates homosexual acts but I would imagine in this case he's pretty pissed off at the acts of the protesters as well. If I was the father I would probably remember back when I was ashamed of my son, how long it took me to accept who he was and realize that the fight for acceptance is still a long way from being won for all kinds of people, it's not just a gay thing. When is the last time you saw a retarded waiter? That shit ain't right but no ones going to court over it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tough to legislate bad taste and manners. As I understand it God hates homosexual acts but I would imagine in this case he's pretty pissed off at the acts of the protesters as well. If I was the father I would probably remember back when I was ashamed of my son, how long it took me to accept who he was and realize that the fight for acceptance is still a long way from being won for all kinds of people, it's not just a gay thing. When is the last time you saw a retarded waiter? That shit ain't right but no ones going to court over it.
His son is not gay. They just go to soldiers' funerals and spout hate about gays. It's rulings like this that make people hate lawyers/the court system/etc. Funerals are not a public place, imo.
Link to post
Share on other sites
His son is not gay. They just go to soldiers' funerals and spout hate about gays. It's rulings like this that make people hate lawyers/the court system/etc. Funerals are not a public place, imo.
I just wanted to tell the waiter joke, but you just made this a little more interesting, in that now it's not even personal. That being said, if what they did is a crime than so is candlelight vigils outside Michael Jacksons house. Free speech is what it is.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Funerals are not a public place, imo.
It looks like they were protesting "outside" the funerals. I don't see how we can stop people from protesting outside a funeral home, regardless of the degree of bad taste they are showing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Phelps-Roper, her father, Fred Phelps, and Westboro members contend the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and deaths of soldiers in war are punishment from God for America's tolerance of homosexuality.So is a funeral public or private? They obviously had no intention of being at the funeral for any other reason than publicity to their cause. Does their cause give them the moral high ground in this case? Christianity says this about gays repeatedly in all sects. Christians want to run and influence the country all the time. They just seem to be following thier faith more closely than the people with public outrage against it. Is it Christianity gone amok or has the followers lost their stomach for the actual message?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just a bunch of inbred retards using religion as an excuse for bigotry. And again, funerals are private, but the land around funeral homes and cemeteries isn't, so they are free to protest there, as long as they aren't slandering anyone in particular.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Phelps-Roper, her father, Fred Phelps, and Westboro members contend the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and deaths of soldiers in war are punishment from God for America's tolerance of homosexuality.So is a funeral public or private? They obviously had no intention of being at the funeral for any other reason than publicity to their cause. Does their cause give them the moral high ground in this case? Christianity says this about gays repeatedly in all sects. Christians want to run and influence the country all the time. They just seem to be following thier faith more closely than the people with public outrage against it. Is it Christianity gone amok or has the followers lost their stomach for the actual message?
eyeroll.This isn't true at all. God loves everyone and says it often in the Bible. It's the act of the penis going in and out of the male rectum that is frowned upon, but is the same as every other sin. The consequences on Earth might be worse, ie AIDS, but as it relates to one's salvation, it is viewed by God, the same as being prideful.
Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the issue here?Are we on the fathers side or the law?I mean I surely feel for the father to have to witness that protest on the day of his son's funeral but they didn't do anything that should have awarded him $5million large.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It looks like they were protesting "outside" the funerals. I don't see how we can stop people from protesting outside a funeral home, regardless of the degree of bad taste they are showing.
Hmmm. Yeah, the father is probably screwed (though I could see the SC saying....'well, let's cut this guy a break and not make him pay the legal fees of those nutcases.')If they were outside the funeral, there is not much precedent supporting the father as SA21 pointed out.
Link to post
Share on other sites
eyeroll.This isn't true at all. God loves everyone and says it often in the Bible. It's the act of the penis going in and out of the male rectum that is frowned upon, but is the same as every other sin. The consequences on Earth might be worse, ie AIDS, but as it relates to one's salvation, it is viewed by God, the same as being prideful.
So you are saying, or your interpretation of the bible is saying that pridefullness is bad. My son gets his first little league hit and I'm supposed to run to confession? The bible leaves everything open to interpretation I suppose. So are these people then justified in protesting since the army is allowing people in that stick their penis up other peoples rectums? Is the father just being prideful at his son's funeral? it seems to me that you can spin this anyway you like using the bible.Isn't it pretty obvious that the bible as a guide to behaviour is sorely lacking in clarity and tends to have people acting without much common sense.It also strikes me that most people are abhored that people would protest this funeral and think they are zealots without much thought that it is their own religon causing them to do it. I think the vast majority of the people that claim to be Christian aren't really and don't follow doctrine and in fact, couldn't even tell you what the doctrine is, they just know idiots and bad behaviour when they see it. They also don't like it when people call attention to the dumb side of Christianity.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the issue here?Are we on the fathers side or the law?I mean I surely feel for the father to have to witness that protest on the day of his son's funeral but they didn't do anything that should have awarded him $5million large.
The award was obviously meant as a punishment against this group that has been acting up for years. Instead of anyone learning anything it has become about making people pay.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems Britain has their own thoughts on this.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...rts/8452616.stmFive Muslim men who protested at a home-coming parade in Luton where soldiers were called murderers have been found guilty of making threats.The charges related to a march through the town in March 2009, a judge at Luton Magistrates' Court heard.The five men, all from Luton, were convicted of using threatening, abusive or insulting words and behaviour likely to cause harassment and distress.Two of the protesters have been cleared of all charges.Jalal Ahmed, 21, Yousaf Bashir, 29, Ziaur Rahman, 32, Shajjadar Choudhury, 31, Munim Abdul, 28, were found guilty.'Abuse and insults'Ibrahim Anderson, 32, and Jubair Ahmed, 19, who are also from Luton, were found not guilty. All had denied the charges.In finding five men guilty District Judge Carolyn Mellanby said: "I have no doubt it is abusive and insulting to tell soldiers to 'Go to hell' - to call soldiers murderers, rapists and baby killers.""It is not just insulting to the soldiers but to the citizens of Luton who were out on the streets that day to honour and welcome soldiers home."Citizens of Luton are entitled to demonstrate their support for the troops without experiencing insults and abuse."She went on: "The fact that they say they did not intend their remarks to be insulting does not amount to defence in law."They were fully aware that shocking phrases in such circumstances would inevitably cause distress."Defence lawyers had argued the right to freedom of speech was at stake.Earlier in the day Jubair Ahmed's lawyer used philosopher Voltaire's views on freedom of speech to defend him.'Protest approved'In her closing speech for his defence Sonal Dashani said: "Voltaire said 'I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'"That was in the 18th Century. Things have moved on since then, though perhaps not as quickly as one might have liked."If you believe in freedom of speech you have to accept that some things will be said that you will like and some things will be said that you will not like."Angry scenes broke out during the parade for the 2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, known as The Poachers.Lawyers defending the men said their clients discussed their plans to protest with police beforehand, had agreed to a time and a place to do so with them, had complied with police throughout and officers had not objected at the time to their slogans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And why no go one step further?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8453560.stmIslam4UK Islamist group banned under terror laws Anjem Choudary is the group's spokesman in the UK A radical Islamist group that planned a march through Wootton Bassett will be banned under counter-terrorism laws, Home Secretary Alan Johnson has said.Islam4UK had planned the protest at the Wiltshire town to honour Muslims killed in the Afghanistan conflict. The government had been considering outlawing the group under its original name, al-Muhajiroun. A spokesman for Islam4UK told the BBC it was an "ideological and political organisation", and not a violent one. Mr Johnson said: "I have today laid an order which will proscribe al-Muhajiroun, Islam4UK, and a number of the other names the organisation goes by. "It is already proscribed under two other names - al-Ghurabaa and The Saved Sect. "Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism and is not a course we take lightly. FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME More from Today programme Analysis: Banning terror groups "We are clear that an organisation should not be able to circumvent proscription by simply changing its name." Under the Terrorism Act 2000, a group can be banned if it "commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for, promotes or encourages terrorism or is otherwise concerned in terrorism". Groups can also be outlawed if they "unlawfully glorify the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism". Islam4UK spokesman Anjem Choudary told BBC Radio 4: "What the people will see is if you don't agree with the government and you want to expose their foreign policy, then freedom quickly dissipates and turns into dictatorship." He denied Islam4UK members were involved in violence: "I challenge anyone to authentically prove that any of our members have been involved in any violent activities or promoting violent activities or asking anyone to carry out any sort of military operations. "We are always at pains to stress that we are an ideological and political organisation. 'Whatever price necessary'Keith Vaz MP, Home Affairs Select Committee: ""They have the right to appeal""We won't be using those names and those platforms which have been proscribed, but I can't stop being a Muslim, I can't stop propagating Islam, I can't stop praying, I can't stop calling for the Sharia. "That's something I must do, and ultimately I will pay whatever price I need to for my belief." Speaking from Lebanon, Omar Bakri Muhammad, founder of al-Muhajiroun, told the BBC the decision to ban the group would "increase the popularity of al-Muhajiroun" and "force them underground". On Sunday Islam4UK cancelled the march, saying it had "successfully highlighted the plight of Muslims in Afghanistan". The banning order will come into effect on Thursday and make it a criminal offence to be a member, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Ordinary Muslim organisations have long regarded al-Muhajiroun as harming community relations - but they were split on whether or not a ban would be beneficial. Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that he would shed no tears - but he feared a ban would play into al-Muhajiroun's hands who would present themselves as the victims. But Muslim campaign group Minhaj-ul-Quran UK said the government had done the right thing. "We support the ban on the extremist groups but suggest banning extremist individuals too as they will appear again with a different name," said spokesman Shahid Mursaleen. "The Government must promote a voice of moderation in order to get rid of the extremist tendencies in our society." Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling welcomed the decision to ban Islam4UK, saying Conservatives had been calling for the government to act. He said: "We cannot permit any group which propagates the views of banned international preachers of hate and organises hate-filled public protests to operate in Britain. "Now ministers need to look at how they are going to ban other groups in the UK which are part of broader international networks of extremism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so the Phelps gang was saying,The church members carry signs saying "America is Doomed," "God Hates America" and "Thank God for Dead Solders."Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2010/03/09/1216512/p...l#ixzz0jsURmibWShould we prosecute them under anti-terrorism laws? It would be kinda cool to put God on trial and see what he has to say about it. "Your honor, I would like to call God as my next witness""OBJECTION!!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actual picture from my office: photo-4.jpg
I rarely say this, but you and I would probably get along well in real life. We should meet up some day...it's too bad I'll be busy when that day comes. Oh well.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I rarely say this, but you and I would probably get along well in real life. We should meet up some day...it's too bad I'll be busy when that day comes. Oh well.
There's nothing like two grown men connecting over a muppet.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is just a bunch of inbred retards using religion as an excuse for bigotry.
Yes."They are going to have to uproot an entire body of law to stop us" To me, this screams of hate speech and/or threats.I felt that more strongly before I had to explain it. I'm kind of coming up blank. It implies that they know what they are doing is harmful, but are misusing laws and the system to keep doing it.I like Randy's point about being terrorist, especially when the funeral isn't for a gay soldier, but that's a slippery slope I'd rather avoid.If this was about anything other than gays, it would be considered hateful. Women, blacks, you name it. It'd be hateful. But it's about gays, and it'll be 10 years until American society considers them the same as other groups in that respect.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...