Court's ruling in funeral protest case restates First Amendment principles

Do I then deserve the right to stand in your home, against your will, preaching to you the immorality of your lifestyle choices because my right to speech outweighs your freedom of privacy from my invasion?

Explain how this balances the two rights, in any way shape or form?

pineappleING EXACTLY. I swear to god southperry, if this family is slaughtered is the next upcoming years I'll be the pineappleing mastermind. These people are scum, it's already intolerable dealing with the fact people are so ignorant minded about homosexuality, but now we have very persistant activists downright insulting the entire country for being pineappleing tolerant of people who are different. In fact insulting the people who protect their goddam rights to say pomegranate in the first place.

What really annoys me about this goddam cult is the fact they are so hypocritical in their standings, if I had 10 minutes with this uneducated Kansas hick, I would repremand her and make her emotionally scar'd for life. It's people like this who have their hands in their pineappleing faces and they can't see any perspective beyond that.

God it's not the fact how the hearing went, it's the fact they're are no repercussions and this poor kids family had to deal with such verbal assault.

If my recent passed away grandfather who is retired military somehow end up at his funeral while I'm there. I'll beat the peach to death.

Still raging, brb collecting onesself .

Would it be possible to have a funeral business, complete with burial plots, but still have it private?

They exist today but most people can't afford them. They're on the level of country clubs in most cases, with membership dues for upkeep and security gates to limit people getting in. Not a particularly viable option for the whole country, especially not people who want to be buried near loved ones who are already interred.

Here is my take on this. This organization is extremely hipocritical. The purpose in most organized religion is to provide a sense of morality. These guys claim to be doing "gods will" all the while doing so in the most immoral way possible. Even more to the point, doesnt the bible state that god loves everyone? Would that not include the very people they are protesting against? If the afterlife is as they describe then I guess I will see them all in hell cause that is were they will be too. Nothing burns my ass like disrespectful pomegranate like this. Being former military myself, I am not proud of everything I did while "in defense of our nation", but I did it and understand that others still do it for the same reasons. It doesnt make us bad people or "siners". Each of us does what we believe to be the right thing to do. If I die and find myself standing before god to be judged, when he asks why I did what I did, my responce will be that I lived my life to the best of my ability and did what I thought was right at the time. If god truely loves us all he will not "send anyone to hell" for the reasons these jackasses seem to have a problem with. Also I would challenge anyone of them to point out exactly where in the bible it says, "thou shalt not have relations with thyn same sex". I dont do that myself, but in the same breath I dont care if anyone else does either. If thats your choice then so be it. I choose to like or dislike based on the person not sexual orientation.

I'm glad they came to this decision. As was once said, "he who gives up freedom for security deserves neither".

Well thats a dumb argument. By having laws against anything, some "freedoms" are given up. But I don't see anyone rushing to make sweeping changes removing all laws, do you?

Personally I think the mistake here is that funerals should be protected private spaces. We bury our dead in public communal areas by necessity, not choice. Given our options most people would probably opt to bury their loved ones in their own private burial grounds free from the prying eyes of others intruding on their grief.

While I respect the rights of anyone to say what they want, they should not have the freedom to trample on your grief by insulting your loss in such a fashion. It's not about their right to free speech, it's protecting the respect and dignity of another person's passing and grief of their family during a trying time.

Totally agreeing with this. A country's first priority should be their own and unique individual.

Do I then deserve the right to stand in your home, against your will, preaching to you the immorality of your lifestyle choices because my right to speech outweighs your freedom of privacy from my invasion?

Explain how this balances the two rights, in any way shape or form?

The WBC was not invading their private space though. They respected all the rules of staying a certain distance from the church grounds and not being aggressive (even notifying that they would be doing it in advance and following the instructions of the police, according to the article). They are organized haters, not rampaging.

I'm not in favor of their views but they sure went out of their way to express in the most aweful manner but still well inside the laws. You have to see that any protest is always about causing commotion and stirring people up (even gay parades or /b/ raids).

The WBC was not invading their private space though.

If you are uninvited & visible to me at any point during the funeral of my family or friends you are invading my private space.
I don't care if you're standing across the street, your message is polluting my environment and I have a right to not experience that during my grief.

I personally can't wait for the day a driver swerves off road during one of these events and takes out the whole lot of them and gets away with it on the grounds of temporary insanity at having had the memory of their loved one violated.

We already had that conversation.

Not to mention this happened after that incident.
I'm simply wondering how they'll react since their patience with them seems to be growing thin.

If you are uninvited & visible to me at any point during the funeral of my family or friends you are invading my private space.
I don't care if you're standing across the street, your message is polluting my environment and I have a right to not experience that during my grief.

I personally can't wait for the day a driver swerves off road during one of these events and takes out the whole lot of them and gets away with it on the grounds of temporary insanity at having had the memory of their loved one violated.

THIS!!!! Let me use my own example......

10 teenagers in front of my house using their "freedom of speech" to let my daughter and her friend know what they "thought of them". This proceeded to bring other neighbors out of their homes to see what the commotion was about. 6 adults outside asking them to leave didn't work. We all also have small children we are trying to protect from listening to the vulgarity occuring outside. They are NOT on our personal property......they are out in the middle of the street. The police come and shoo them away because they are causing a disturbance. I wonder how come this is much different and the police are able to take action? Thoughts?

THIS!!!! Let me use my own example......

10 teenagers in front of my house using their "freedom of speech" to let my daughter and her friend know what they "thought of them". This proceeded to bring other neighbors out of their homes to see what the commotion was about. 6 adults outside asking them to leave didn't work. We all also have small children we are trying to protect from listening to the vulgarity occuring outside. They are NOT on our personal property......they are out in the middle of the street. The police come and shoo them away because they are causing a disturbance. I wonder how come this is much different and the police are able to take action? Thoughts?

It was a protest that was notifyed in advance to the police and surveilled by them. They asked the police what were the rules they should follow and complied to them.

Remember: what you feel is right is not the same as what the law says is right. The law has nothing to do with being right, it's simply the code which we have agreed to follow.

It was a protest that was notifyed in advance to the police and surveilled by them. They asked the police what were the rules they should follow and complied to them.

Remember: what you feel is right is not the same as what the law says is right. The law has nothing to do with being right, it's simply the code which we have agreed to follow.

So if I make plans in advance with the police to go in front of these people's houses and follow the rules it's ok? Might have to think about doing that then cause I'm still pissed about it.

So if I make plans in advance with the police to go in front of these people's houses and follow the rules it's ok? Might have to think about doing that then cause I'm still pissed about it.

Sure, it's completely in your rights to express your anger about WBC, as long as you follow the rules.
PS: Works anyway, Talia.

I think we can all come to a consensus that what Westboro Baptist is doing is wrong, however I do not think right or wrong is a factor in interpreting and enforcing the constitution. Right and wrong is a very subjective matter in our culture.

Sure, it's completely in your rights to express your anger about WBC, as long as you follow the rules.

I wasn't referring to the WBC. I was referring to these other children's homes. Pretty sure their parents wouldn't appreciate my daughter doing what their children did.

Is what the WBC is doing within the laws of the constitution? Yes. However, that said it is wrong both form a moral stand point and general stand point. When our founding fathers created the constitution I do not believe that they intended people to take things to this extreme. This country for example was founded as a constitutional republic. That has been misconstrued into a "democracy". Our founding fathers were very much against democracy because it takes the choice away from the people. It gives an uneven view on things. In a constitutional republic each voice and view are equal and niether can be greater than the other no matter the numbers on either side of it. In the WBC case they do have the right to express thier views but they are doing so with out the opposition having an equal voice.

I have to wonder what their reaction would be to protesters chanting outside their church in the same manner that they do at funerals. I bet they would take great offense to that. Sooner or later it is going to turn violent and that is kind of the point. Right now it is on the edge of that.

Is what the WBC is doing within the laws of the constitution? Yes. However, that said it is wrong both form a moral stand point and general stand point. When our founding fathers created the constitution I do not believe that they intended people to take things to this extreme. This country for example was founded as a constitutional republic. That has been misconstrued into a "democracy". Our founding fathers were very much against democracy because it takes the choice away from the people. It gives an uneven view on things. In a constitutional republic each voice and view are equal and niether can be greater than the other no matter the numbers on either side of it. In the WBC case they do have the right to express thier views but they are doing so with out the opposition having an equal voice.

I have to wonder what their reaction would be to protesters chanting outside their church in the same manner that they do at funerals. I bet they would take great offense to that. Sooner or later it is going to turn violent and that is kind of the point. Right now it is on the edge of that.

Their opposition does have an equal voice, everyone is entitled to arranging a protest according to the rules against the WBC if they want. They were not extreme, they employed peaceful means and arranged in advance to voice their opinion in a public place. It doesn't matter how much you are against their view on things, they still have their right to express it as long as they follow the rules (which they did in an incredibly rigorous way).

Their opposition does have an equal voice, everyone is entitled to arranging a protest according to the rules against the WBC if they want. They were not extreme, they employed peaceful means and arranged in advance to voice their opinion in a public place. It doesn't matter how much you are against their view on things, they still have their right to express it as long as they follow the rules (which they did in an incredibly rigorous way).

Well, then I think a very large group of people should organize a protest during Sunday mass. No matter how "peaceful" they've been on their end of things, I still bet it would piss them off if people showed up EVERY SINGLE SUNDAY!!!

Just......WOW! <shakes head>

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80698342/

I think we can all come to a consensus that what Westboro Baptist is doing is wrong, however I do not think right or wrong is a factor in interpreting and enforcing the constitution. Right and wrong is a very subjective matter in our culture.

On a personal level I don't like it, but I still think it's important to protect this right, even for people I disagree with.

I guess since I don't believe in God, that takes away some of the sting of their "God hates fags" signs though.

On a personal level I don't like it, but I still think it's important to protect this right, even for people I disagree with.

I guess since I don't believe in God, that takes away some of the sting of their "God hates fags" signs though.

Honestly, my problem with all this mess isn't their message, but the locations in which they force it unto others.
At a military funeral? pineapple's sake, it can only go on for so long till they get their asses handed to them.