“F A G” Protesters at Funerals

This Aussie was just watching the TV News and was abhorred what I saw. So motivated that I had to put this online to try to make some sense of this, if there is any.

At funerals of your Boys and Girls, that have been killed on duty in Iraq. Protesters are turning up and saying – This is the way of the lord, for the U.S. harbouring Fags !!

First in Lincoln Texas but these protests are spreading across the U.S.A.

For this fair minded, live and let live person, I find the connection these people are making, totally unbelievable !! I simply don’t understanding their motivation of hatred. Their presence at these funerals, attended by grieving relatives of the dead, is sick to my way of thinking.

Can someone “please” try to explain to me what these people are trying to achieve. Are they Just the Looney religious right or something much more sinister ?

I am so lucky to live in Australia where we don’t have these extremes.

I love the U.S. and its people but this, ohh I am simply lost for words.

Well I don’t think to can derive to much from Fox news or what ever, their are always going to be some nuts doing stuff like this “normally religious ones” but that kind of out burst is not common in the US. To tell the truth if they did pick up steam and where doing stuff like that all over the US it would help the gay community. The back lash from "normal" people would be so grate that gay marriage and about ever other discrimination issue would be over with-in 5 years

JUST FOUND OUT SOME MORE - (This from another person)

I know what group you are talking about. It's really small in fact, I believe like 20-30 members. 10 or so are actually in the same family.

At first I thought they were religous nuts. They certainly use it as a means of arguing their case. But after awhile, I just figured they were sad, lonely people who craved attention from everywhere. There is no rhyme or reason to their protests and it seems like they just pick the events that would garner the most criticism. They cheered 9/11, they protest at funerals of soldiers, and are really sick people.

The worst part about it is that the heads of this so-called church all are lawyers. So if you look at them the wrong way or do anything to disrupt them, they'll sue you over and over. Some states are trying to pass laws now saying protests can't be within a certain number of feet of a funeral.

Personally for me, if someone was doing that outside a family member's funeral, there is no court in the world that would save them from the fury I would unleash.

AND MORE (From a 3rd person)

They are just a bunch of nuts from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS. They are led by "Rev." Fred Phelps. They have been involved in these kinds of ridiculous publicity stunts for ages. While I hate living near these morons home base, it's nice to be able to lay on the horn and give them the finger every time I see them. I'm proud to say I have been taunting and harassing them for over a decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rev._Fred_Phelps

The Fred Phelps crew first made a name for themselves when they protested Matthew Shephard's funeral [the young gay man beaten, pistol whipped, tied to a fence and left to die on a lonely road in Wyoming]

http://www.matthewshepard.org/

Their antics are utterly obscene. They not only protest funerals, but they protest at churches that don't "hate fags" enough for them--like Catholic churches. They protest at anything they can loosely connect to gay rights but what they are doing actually galvanizes SUPPORT of gay rights in many of the places they protest.
They are so extreme that they get people that otherwise would stay silent to realize the level of hate that is out there--an unintended consequence I am sure.

How Fucked !! is this -

http://www.godhatesfags.com
http://www.godhatesamerica.com

:angry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

The Fred Phelps crew first made a name for themselves when they protested Matthew Shephard's funeral [the young gay man beaten, pistol whipped, tied to a fence and left to die on a lonely road in Wyoming]

http://www.matthewshepard.org/

Their antics are utterly obscene. They not only protest funerals, but they protest at churches that don't "hate fags" enough for them--like Catholic churches. They protest at anything they can loosely connect to gay rights but what they are doing actually galvanizes SUPPORT of gay rights in many of the places they protest.
They are so extreme that they get people that otherwise would stay silent to realize the level of hate that is out there--an unintended consequence I am sure.

---

Ya that’s what I was saying too :)

I simply can't believe these people are for real !! :mental:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/photos/thisyear.html

These inbreed freaks of nature are proof that incest should not be practiced (but it is Kansas after all)...not really a surprise when you consider that the state doesn't even accept scientific facts!

They are nothing more than a hate group hiding behind religion.

Lee

Some cities have even begun enacting legislation to prevent protests at funerals.

I hope I'm there to watch when these self righteous fanatics get whats coming to them and burn in hell.

Hey.... I know I hate to bring it up.... but they have a right to assemble and protest what they want. That guy's freedom of speech is as good as mine when I put pictures of naked people on my web pages, and talk about it. Or when I purposefully mangle my 2257 Compliance Statement wording on my front page.

...Even if you think there is a special place in Hell for individuals like Fred
Phelps. I hadn't thought about it, but I guess he's a good case to test your tolerance on the limits of free speech.

Honestly, my opinion is that he does it for the attention, pure and simple. Otherwise he'd be working some night shift at a 7-11 in rural Kansas.

Steve

somehow i just think "freedom of speech" was used in "bad taste" in this instance and although "legally" they may have had a right to protest i feel as if several lines of "morality/ethics/etc" were broken.

sincerely ~ ..."how can you preach peace waving a sword?"...

Oh, I know. It's perfectly horrible. But even "bad taste" is something depending on anyone's definition.

What is the difference between Fred Phelps protests, and environmentalist groups protesting outside the stockholder's meeting of Exxon? Or Cindy Sheehan in front of George Bush's house? You can think one is good, and one is bad..... or you can look at all of them and just exclaim geez, people, get a life! But then, some people are cude n' rude, while others are smooth and suave. And everyone has an opinion.

There are several countries in Europe (I know Austria as one offhand) where its against the law to publically deny the occurance of the Holocaust. I think that is a pretty good example of how free speech rights have more limits elsewhere, versus in the United States.

Looking at where governments decide to draw the line on free speech has become an interest of mine since my own business is closely meshed in the US's interpretation of these ideas.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

Oh, I know. It's perfectly horrible. But even "bad taste" is something depending on anyone's definition.

What is the difference between Fred Phelps protests, and environmentalist groups protesting outside the stockholder's meeting of Exxon? Or Cindy Sheehan in front of George Bush's house? You can think one is good, and one is bad..... or you can look at all of them and just exclaim geez, people, get a life! But then, some people are cude n' rude, while others are smooth and suave. And everyone has an opinion.

There are several countries in Europe (I know Austria as one offhand) where its against the law to publically deny the occurance of the Holocaust. I think that is a pretty good example of how free speech rights have more limits elsewhere, versus in the United States.

Looking at where governments decide to draw the line on free speech has become an interest of mine since my own business is closely meshed in the US's interpretation of these ideas.

Steve

---

Well is it okay to yell 'fire' in a crowded room/theatre?

Free Speech also has to be tempered with what other rights it abrogates, such as 'hate'. The law in Austriai that you speak of is in relation to denying that it existed, not to what extend it existed. There is a difference. To deny something existed makes it seem false, to debate how many died is simply arguing statistics. To deny it existed promotes hatred.. hence the law prohibiting public denial of the event taking place. Would be no different to deny the Crusades took place or to deny that 9/11 never happened. They happened, denying them is fostering hatred.

Phelps has the absolute right to make his claims, as sick as they are. What I find hard to accept is what about the rights of the others to bury their dead with honour and dignity? Don't their rights also have merit? The right to public protest exists, but you can't for example walk up the President with a picket sign out of need to protect his life... demonstrations and even union picket lines are restricted to be confined to certain areas... does that infringe on the rights of free speech? I don't think so, they get their right to holler, just not in the face of people they are opposing... is that wrong or a decent attempt at balancing the rights of both parties?

I think to limit Phelps to outside private property is not infringing on his rights of free speech one bit. It is something that should be done, least in my view.

good post, gaystoryman!

GSM--

You are talking about Time Place and Manner restrictions, which ARE legal in the US. However, the restrictions have to be reasonable and still allow for free expression. A boundary of "no protests within 500 feet of a funeral" would probably be constitutional but "no protesting funerals" is not.

Phelps crew is very smart in their manner--they will notify the local law enforcement, usually by fax, of the time and place where they plan to picket. Phelps do this for their own protection, plus it allows the local police to make sure there are enough officers in place to keep anyone from getting hurt. Phelps crew will only picket on public property, such as a sidewalk. They picket for a very short time and leave. They videotape their pickets, so if someone assaults them there will be video evidence [oh wouldn't you love to pass by with a truck load of baseballers and 1000 frozen water balloons???].

I don't like what they say, but they have a right to their opinion and they go to great length to make sure they are protesting within the boundaries of the law.

When old man Phelps finally kicks off, I want to protest HIS funeral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaystoryman

Well is it okay to yell 'fire' in a crowded room/theatre?
I think to limit Phelps to outside private property is not infringing on his rights of free speech one bit. It is something that should be done, least in my view.

---

Good points. Hmmmm... the right to hollar... Is that an enumerated right, or just implied??? :P

I know from going to the University of Texas that there is one "designated free speech zone" on the West Mall of campus, which is the only place they would let people protest the school's 1980s evil investments in South Africa, or marching against the Pinochet government, or for the Sandinistas, or boycotting grapes (No Uvas), etc.

Just don't take that over to the South Mall, or a policeman will arrest you.

Legacies from old UT President Frank Erwin, who in the sixties stopped funding the college newspaper The Daily Texan because it printed opposing views of his administration, and he made the famous blunt statement "We do not fund what we do not control."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaystoryman

Free Speech also has to be tempered with what other rights it abrogates, such as 'hate'. The law in Austriai that you speak of is in relation to denying that it existed, not to what extend it existed. There is a difference.

---

Why does free speech have to be tempered in the way you describe? I think you dive into a real big mess if you begin talking about "hate speech." For example, I was watching a call in show on CSPAN this morning, where one caller during the course of his remarks about the Dubai Ports purchase, he called the President a "communist and socialist" numerous times, and also stated that he exgaged in acts of treason, which of course required impeachment proceedings.

Why doesn't that promote hatred and false ideas? What if I wrote a book making the case that the Feds explicitly blew up the levees in New Orleans to flood out the black residents? That was actual testimony from several witnesses during the House Katrina hearings last Fall.... I think there's lots in that which implies racial hatred based on complete fantasy.

Furthermore, isn't picking and choosing good speech from bad speech rather cavalier? I recall that Chief Justice Warren Burger argued that pornography was not protected speech because it was purient and contained no educational or social value. That was his arbitrary line in the sand.

Just some thoughts on a complicated and interesting subject.

Steve

Quote:

---

Why does free speech have to be tempered in the way you describe? I think you dive into a real big mess if you begin talking about "hate speech." For example, I was watching a call in show on CSPAN this morning, where one caller during the course of his remarks about the Dubai Ports purchase, he called the President a "communist and socialist" numerous times, and also stated that he exgaged in acts of treason, which of course required impeachment proceedings.

---

Run in sentance. Hate to incite to riot or commit acts of violence cannot be considered free speech. One thing to stand up and say you 'hate this person or that, or even this race or that' but another to say 'they should all be gassed' and then have some moron go do it. You can yell all you want, far as I am concerned, but you cross the line of free speech when you incite people to commit crimes or justify crimes even, because after all they are only (insert minority of choice here).

The austrian law is more to do with that than to say you can't have free speech. Even in Canada we have similar hate laws, and its worked I think pretty good. Course the Hitler Lovers disagree like Ernst Zundel and Keigstra (not sure of that spelling) but to promote hatred, whatever reason isn't about an opinion or free speech... it is about violence.

Unpopular speech need to be protected more that any other type. I am not for ANY laws that would try to control people freedom of speech no matter how much I personally don’t like it.

Its a real slippery slop when you start picking and choosing what speech you fill is promoting hate, or something you find offensive.

they protested Coretta Scott King's funeral?
why the fuck did they do that?
http://www.godhatesfags.com/photos/2..._lithonia.html
and why didnt that get any press?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaystoryman

You can yell all you want, far as I am concerned, but you cross the line of free speech when you incite people to commit crimes or justify crimes even, because after all they are only (insert minority of choice here).

---

Well, here we have two people looking at one thing, and reaching seperate conclusions.

I just had a jolly ol' time reading Wikipedia's fact packed entry on slander and libel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

Steve

All I know is that, if I had a gun on me at the funeral for someone I loved who had died and one of these nut-mongers showed up and protested, they would not be breathing for very much longer.