Funeral Protests by Westboro Baptist Church are not protected by Constitution

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by grey580
 


Yelling fire in an airplane incontestable on There rights. Protesting on public property does not infringe on rights.

They could try suing. I would back that.

And not all funerals are religious.
 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Well most funerals are done in cemetaries which are not public when it's run by a company. Not sure what the case is here with this ceremony.

I would say that if there is a pastor, priest or minister there saying words it could be described as a religious ceremony of sorts.
I would say that qualifies under the 1st amendment.




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Reply to post by muzzleflash
 


*The church has not made threats of violence

*You do realize that by threatening them with violence, you are breaking the law.

*The Constitution only applies to the government.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Reply to post by grey580
 


Sorry for the weird words. My phone spazzes sometimes. I edited my last post to more accurately describe what I was trying to say.

The place where the funeral is being held can absolutely bar entrance to Westboro. I hope that they do.

But Constitutionally, nothing can be done about them being on the sidewalks, as that is public property.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 

edit on 1/12/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Are you seriously saying that we need a court to tell us whether or not we have the right to bury our dead ???



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Reply to post by okbmd
 


Who is denying them of burying their dead?

And if you want to call it a right that can be infringed upon, yes, it needs to go through SCOTUS, or else every Tom, Dick, and Harry can come up with random rights, and Anarchy would ensue.

Don't like it? You are the one who brought up the 9th Amendment.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


I hope that they do bar them from entering too.
But yeah the sidewalk is still accessable to the protesters.
hopefully the sidewalk is far enough away so they can't be heard.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


To suggest that we need a court to interpret the constitution to see if it guarantees us the right to bury our dead , is ludicrous .

Maybe I'm not wording all of this the right way ?

Do you feel that burying your loved ones is your right ? Yes or no , without all the double-speak .

If one of your family members die , do you feel you need to ask the court if you have the "right" to bury them ?

Bottom line is , it is either your 'right' to do so , or you do not have the 'right' to do so , and must ask permission from some entity to do so .

Now , are we required to ask government if we can bury our dead ? If not , then it is only logical to assume that we have the 'right' to do so .

Pretty cut and dried , if you ask me .



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Reply to post by okbmd
 


I believe it is a right yes. But in order to prove that is s right in a court if law, what I think is a right and what other's think is a right may and will clash.

I think being able to smoke whatever I want is a right. Tell me how you think that would go over with the cops.

Again, how does one decide what is a natural right and what is not, when it comes to a court of law and the Ninth Amendment?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 



I think being able to smoke whatever I want is a right. Tell me how you think that would go over with the cops.


I aint even gonna go there . My thoughts on that are obvious , to an astute observer .



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I think that I should clarify my position.

I do not think that it s right that the judges decide what is a right or not.

It was not always like this. Back when states had rights (pre-civil war), the state decided what was a right. The 14th amendment killed that, and the Griseild case in 1967 was the nail in the coffin in reference to the 9th amendment.

I do It agree with it at all. I am just stating the truth of how things are now.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Reply to post by okbmd
 


So what is the difference, besides emotion?

Again, who decides what is a right?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
I think that I should clarify my position.

I do not think that it s right that the judges decide what is a right or not.

It was not always like this. Back when states had rights (pre-civil war), the state decided what was a right. The 14th amendment killed that, and the Griseild case in 1967 was the nail in the coffin in reference to the 9th amendment.

I do It agree with it at all. I am just stating the truth of how things are now.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



I can't find a "Griseild" case from 1967. I might guess that you meant to type Griswold, as in Griswold v Connecticutt, but that was a 1965 case that involved the rights of a married couple to use a condom. So, what are you talking about. What court was the Griseild case in? I'd like to see what it says.
edit on 12-1-2011 by 4nsicphd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Arghh. My phone. Heh.

Yes, Griswold case in 1965. Off the top of my head thought it was 1967. Apologies for the confusion.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Freedom of speech exists so long as it does not cause a danger to other people. This is why you get your butt thrown in jail if you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It is only a matter of time until someone gets hurt at one of their "shows" (and that's all it is, they are professional trolls). They protested a high school or two this year, and I swear if it were my kid having to hear that crap, I'd sue them for child abuse. Don't think I'd win, but I'd prove a point.

The OP has good and valid points, because the laws like the one Arizona just passed have held up in court, despite the Phelps' best efforts to strike them down. Ignoring them won't make them go away.

I suggested filling up every single parking space in any town they're protesting in to keep those leeches out of the area.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tncryptogal


. . .

The OP has good and valid points, because the laws like the one Arizona just passed have held up in court, despite the Phelps' best efforts to strike them down. Ignoring them won't make them go away.

. . .


Not quite true. It is a back and forth. The last I found was:

Judge: Missouri funeral protest ban unconstitutional

Please note that that law was also based off of the Ohio law that was found Constitutional by another judge.,



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Well, darn it!

I wonder what would happen if someone used their fists in their freedom of expression?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


The 'constitution' has been ripped to shreds already! Technological advancements have made the ideas expressed in the 'constitution' history!



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
My husbands cousin was killed in Iraq in 2007, and yes WBC was there to protest. But I was focused on the family and what the pastor was saying, and the ceremony, so I really didnt notice WBC until we left the cemetary. However it was still very disrespectful, and I cant understand what they think they are accomplishing, except to make most dispise them.

I dont want to make laws that say some people can state opinions and others cant, that would be a dark road to go down. Each individual should be respectful of such painful events as a funeral. Thats why we stop our cars and allow a funeral procession to pass by. Out of respect for the people involved, even though we may not know them. I think this is a matter of treating another as you would want to be treated. I just feel sorry for the WBC members. What miserable people they must be.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tncryptogal
 



I wonder what would happen if someone used their fists in their freedom of expression?


Phelps would love for that to happen , so he could sue and get more money to fuel his despicable hatred .

Myself , I wonder what would happen if protesters showed up at the funeral of one of his family members .

One good turn deserves another .



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Being complete asshats at a funeral does not in any way step on the rights of anyone else. They do not block funerals from being held, they do not stop or otherwise obstruct in any way. All they do is be as annoying and as bigoted as humanly possible.

These people are the internet trolls of the real world, and as such, they need to be ignored completely. They live off of this confrontation, they thrive off of the scandal of their message, this is why they do it.

If no one payed them any attention, they would end up going away.





top topics
 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join