It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iowa lawmaker pushes measure on flag desecration at military funerals!

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

at funerals... I think they should push it up to a full 1320 feet (1/4 mile)

and pepper spray the hell out of anyone crossing that point!




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Its not the action that's obscene...

It's the location...




The bill is not about banning flag burning altogether...

But at funerals!

& yes I think that's obscene.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

The bill is not about banning flag burning altogether...

But at funerals!

& yes I think that's obscene.


Whether you, or others, think it is obscene or not is not the case, as long as they are protesting from public property they are not breaking the law.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Because the first amendment also protects a right to assembly. If you start making exceptions then we're back to the business owner and his picketing employees.
Freedom of assembly except...when I don't like it, I don't agree with it,etc...
Everybody who doesn't agree with the assembly would be looking for a waiver.
Eg, I don't like what those wiccans do so I think we should ban their coven from meeting. Next thing you know we're back to burning witches.
The writers of the constitution were not ambiguous about what they meant. The laws were meant for everyone but that doesn't mean the everyone is happy about every application.
The .murder who gets a life sentence sure isn't happy about that law or to a lesser degree the speeder who gets a ticket isn't happy about the law that says he must pay a fine however most of society would agree that speed limits are a necessity to protect lives and property.
a reply to: WilsonWilson



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I think they're actually a cult. I read somewhere that anyone that leaves also losing contact with their family because the family disowns them. I don't know if that's true but there is something seriously wrong with those people.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AinElohim

Well that's my thinking too...

Outside that barrier you're not interfering with a private event and you get to protest...



Next funeral of a president I urge the people who are advocating "freedom" here to go and do the same...

I bet you don't even get access to the funeral.
Let alone the chance to harass people and disturb it.


imo.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
You opinion doesn't matter. Not in the case of freedom of assembly. The mourners feelings don't come into play either. Now if the Baptists were masturbating on the flag in public at a funeral or just on main street that is considered obscene not because they're messing up the flag but for public nudity or public sexual behavior. If someone wanted to masturbate on the flag in private...well...that's their prerogative. They have a right to express that...ya know, if they want to...
A reply to: CharlieSpeirs



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
The Amish do that too. It's called shunning. It protects the church. a reply to: Skid Mark



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657


most of society would agree that speed limits are a necessity to protect lives and property.



And you don't think "most of society" would be against funeral disturbance and bigotry?
I think we are from a different society.

btw, the next step after stopping funerals being assaulted is not burnings witches...
Nice hyperbole though.
edit on 9-3-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Presidential funeral, presidential inauguration, presidential public speech, have all been protested in the past. Unless they engage in violent behavior or cross onto private property they are and will continue to be within their rights.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657


You opinion doesn't matter. Not in the case of freedom of assembly.


Pleasant.
And you're wrong, because the people who passed the bill seem to agree with me, not you!

So I'm guessing, as it stands, your opinion doesn't matter.
edit on 9-3-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Like I said not every body is going to be happy with every application but that doesn't change the laws. If you start making exceptions every body will be looking for the same privilege.
I'm not saying it's nice but it's their right to do it.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I wasn't saying that to be rude to you. I'm sorry. Don't take it that way please. What I meant was that even if we don't agree with what they do they still have the right to do it. In the application of law feelings won't enter into it. Again sorry.


And was the bill passed?
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs


edit on 392015 by AutumnWitch657 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657


looking for the same privilege.


Until you show me a decent comparison to hatemongering at a funeral...
We will disagree on what is a right, and what is a privilege...


Attending a funeral, is a privilege...
Usually something one needs to be invited to...

So gatecrashing, I don't see the danger in banning such "protest"...

Because it's not even a protest, is it...


It's not about political motives, or moral standpoints...

It's about spreading hatred and shoving it in the face of the mournful...



Anyways, we've made ourselves clear, you can defend that "right"...
I say take away the privilege.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

No worries, my bad!



Yes they passed the bill...
In so far that it now has to pass fully... As seen below.

It has been refined from previous passes that failed to withstand constitutional definition.
Currently they expect it to hold up.



The measure, House Study Bill 157, passed out of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday and goes next to the full House.

edit on 9-3-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Glad to see that non citizens are all for removing our rights a little at a time.




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Yes they passed the bill...
In so far that it now has to pass fully... As seen below.


Even if it passes it will most likely be found un-Constitutional and over turned.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

Yes, and some actual citizens in Iowa seem to think this privilege should be taken away from the abusers of such...


Are you from Iowa?

Are you planning on travelling to Iowa to burn flags and spread hatred at someone's funeral?





Then what "rights" are you losing exactly?



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
There is no argument. It is what it is. reply to: CharlieSpeirs



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Many cemeteries are public domains but it was my understand that these guys were outside the cemeteries on public property anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join