Dead Marine's father ordered to pay protesters' legal costs

Not all the churches/mosques/synagogues/etc. -- just the ones who choose to frolic in the political arena.

 

It's not fine (that is, proper etiquette) to shout such things, but it is certainly legal.

 

Just having fun with ya, I knew what you meant.

I believe they should all be taxed without distinction.

 

Not sure how Baptists are organized. Do they have a central leadership? Do they condone this? Or are they okay that they are associated with this?

 

Isn't just about every political organization in the political arena? Doesn't just about every church have a stance on abortion, gay marriage, or war?

 

There is a difference between expressing an opinion and actively promoting that opinion in the political arena. I leave it to the courts (not the IRS or any legislative body) to define the boundaries.

 

Each Baptist Church is independent, but most are federated members of an association, the largest of which is the Southern Baptist Convention. I venture to say that 99% of the Baptist churches are appalled by this church, but that is conjecture. I know that members in the congregation to which I belong are outraged.

 

So these guys protest random military funerals because they think the US is being punished by god (through the killing of its soldiers -- who he'll obviously send to hell if he reads the placards) because of gay people? Their protest isn't even about the military??

I don't think you can fairly call this political. Nuts is more like it.

Apart from that absurdity....what's being somewhat lost here is the $0.50/page charge for photocopies. I swear there must be legal firms (and government agencies, apparently) where the photocopy room is the biggest profit center.

(PS -- Thumbs....your first few posts here were really good).

 

and my company helps fight this!

 

I fully support gay rights, but I also fully support first amendment rights. As much as I hate to say it, they have every right to protest these funerals and say disgusting things. They were on public property and broke no laws. As long as they weren't threatening violence or showing p*rnography, they should be able to protest that event. Lawyers suing them should have known this would be protected speech, and they should get reimbursed for their legal fees.

That being said, I'm glad O'Reilly (can't stand him) and others are stepping up to cover the costs. These protesters are some of the biggest asshats I've ever read about.

I wish people would boycott them, their followers, and their supporters. It's free speech like the KKK, but that doesn't make it not disgusting. While there are no legal means to stop this kind of speech, the power of economics wielded by a concerned public body can make a difference.

Maybe someone can arrange a large group of gay men to go make out in front of their compound. Keep in clean though. No nudity or overt groping. Just a bit of man-on-man tongue kissing, especially on their birthdays, anniversaries, etc.

 

Actually, there are a number of issues upon which we agree. I usually chime in on the ones where we disagree, so that leads to the illusion we always disagree.

I believe in the separation -- not the exclusion -- of religion and state. That's why I am so keen on stressing non-profit organizations "choosing" to give up their tax free status to promote a political stance.

 

It seems the boundaries have already been defined. You're just not happy with where they are because you think this organization should lie on the other side.

 

Just filling the pews would be enough. Churches by definition have an open door policy, so they can quietly sit holding their Bibles while smiling with kindness regardless of the sermon message. If this church moves to close its doors to all but members only, this church can be declared a private club and therefore taxable.

 

We all hold our own opinions.

 

I think the kind of protesting done by anti-abortion groups should be illegal. It's intimidation - not assembly.

Assembly was meant to allow people to get together for whatever purposes they choose without gov't interference. Hey - if you want to hold a rally of gun-waving nut-cases, anti-abortionists, Nazis, and homophobes - that's great. You can rent out a park and have a BBQ - go for it.

But going in front of a church, a clinic, or someone's home to protest and harass people isn't what the constitution was meant to protect.

 

What would be tight is to start a group that goes around and jeers these protestors since we do have the right to assembly. I bet you people would be down for that.

 

WTF? Good job going to school, looks like you need the education. You have to look at why the law was enacted to determine whether its a case of free speech being maligned or not.

The 1st amendment was created to protect people for standing up to what they believe in, and not to incite violence. Picketing in the funeral of a dead soldier isn't practicing your right to say what you want, their objective is to mock/make fun of the soldier's family and friends.

Saying "I wish the president was dead" is exactly the same as saying "Kill the president". How will the president die (your "wish") unless you kill him? Based on your context, you can justify anything as just stating an opinion:

"I wish Jihadists would bomb the World trade Center"
"I wish someone would kill all ******s, they are all too stupid to know anything anyway"
"I wish someone would assasinate Obama"
Etcetera etcetera...

 

Based on this logic you go around town cussing every black man and asian you come across. You can talk about how Blacks are only useful as slaves, and that Asians should be shipped back to their own continent. You can basically insult everyone from the way their dressed to how they look to even their political beliefs. As long as you don't threaten them that's fine? In the middle of a mass you can go around screaming while the priest gives his sermon? If anybody dares to lay a hand on you, you can sue them for violating your first amendment? LOL

 

Speech is defined in two ways: speech in the public sphere and speech in the private, and the two have different rules.

Take this forum, for example. It is private property, owned by Clutch. Tomorrow I have every right under free speech to post a topic on how Yao is a worthless chinaman, that all Chinese suck at basketball, and that drafting him was a disaster. I could even say that all Chinese need to burn and I will not get arrested. I will however be kicked out of this forum, because either the owner of this forum or those to whom he delegates responsibilty to manage this forum will have major problems and so they can kick me out whatever the state of free speech.

The same applies for a church. I can go in a church and start ranting in the middle of a sermon and I will not get arrested for what I'm saying specifically. However, if the priest decides, he can throw me out of the church, and if I resist, I can be arrested for disorderly conduct. But the arrest here is made because I am acting disorderly in a church, NOT because I'm saying the Catholics are scum.

You're right. The 1st amendment was created to protect people for standing up to what they believe in, regardless of how reprehensible that behavior may be. And the Westboro people do quite obviously sincerely believe that all soldiers will burn in hell or whatever, and you don't have a right to say they don't.

I'm pretty sure people have already been doing that.

Right, because the original Tea Partiers 250 years ago never picketed outside tax collectors, burned down their houses, and never tarred and feathered.
Not saying your point isn't understandable, but I don't think it can be said that the constitution isn't meant to protect something like that. After all, it's proving a negative.