Anti-Gay Funeral Protesters Win Case at U.S. Supreme Court

reply to post by Whereweheaded

I clearly made a very similar argument in the fact that the Freedom of speech ( 1st amendment ), allowed for these church nuts to voice their opinion.

"Allowed", "grant", these are words that are inappropriate in regards to the First Amendment. That Amendment begins "Congress shall make no laws...", not, the people are allowed to speak freely...

Reverting back to my opening comments, Im pretty sure you can see that for yourself scooter.

What I see is an ignorant assumption that the right to free speech has been granted by Constitution. The Bill of Rights are not legal rights, they are unalienable rights. A legal right, or "civil" right can be legally granted, and legally taken away. The First Amendment makes perfectly clear that Congress has no authority what-so-ever to take away the freedom of speech. As such, the right to free speech is not allowed, nor is it granted, it simply is. Your insistence on framing rights as something granted by fallible people say's more about you than you care to own up to.

Instead of acknowledging my statement in regards to the rights of the church nuts, you deemed it necessary to try to present yourself as a " all mighty and knowing " individual.

Your pretense at magnanimity means nothing to me, you are a poser. You are foolishly arguing against unalienable and inviolable rights and in favor of "legal" rights. You are a government sycophant, and any pretense at the defense of freedom should be viewed skeptically.

The fact still remains, you brought up the 9th Amendment. In my rebuttal, and the post before that, you will see I was identifying the Limits of Congress, which falls under the Section 9. No where in any of my posts did I mention the 9th Amendment.

Once again you show your inability to comprehend. I never said you mentioned the 9th Amendment. I pointed to the 9th Amendment to support my contention that rights are not "granted" by Constitution. Get it? Your fallaciousness would be amusing were it not so stupidly for the diminishment of unalienable rights.

Either there was a miscommunication, or, you were hoping to instigate an argument to illicit a response? I have to chose the latter.

You have obviously chosen the latter. It matters not to me what you chose, as long as you keep insisting that the Bill of Rights "grants" rights, I will continue to stand my ground and refute your foolishness.

Think the judges need to retire.. With free speach comes the responsibility to use it appropriately and in manner that does not inflame, incite violence, hate .. Its totally unacceptable and disrespectful to disrupt funerals.. There are other more appropriate ways of "protesting" - in the case of the religious primitives showing their narrow primitive views than disrupting funerals.. But one cant expect primitives to act in a civilised manner..

reply to post by Expat888


You think the Justices of the Supreme Court who upheld the freedom of speech should retire? Are you suggesting that because they did their job, and correctly so, but since it is an unpopular instance of free speech, that they should have ignored the right, and went with the general consensus of the court of public opinion?

Out of democracy rises tyranny.

I just wonder what the difference between this church and the extremist muslin

I would love to see a protest from a extremist muslin group inside american territory and see how long the "free speech" will survive.

As atheist this would be a nice entertainment to see what could happens.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I admire your argument, but you're trying to take an ideological position and stand it up as an absolute law of the universe. There are no natural rights. If someone wants to silence another human being and they have the power, it would simply be a matter of performing the job. Inalienable rights are abstract concepts that I and many others wish were inviolable, but in fact are only granted to us by the peaceable agreement of other men.

The drafters of the Constitution had the foresight to realize others would try to erode the concept of unalienable rights. So I praise them for their wording standing in defense against it. But, in truth, I realize that my liberties are a function of others affording me the privilege to be free.

Originally posted by Secularist

Originally posted by Ratisch
I can't stand this group of so called Christian believers. They and people like them give all believers a bad name.

As utterly contemptible as I find WBC I give them credit. What they preach is what Christianity preaches - its disgusting, right? Read the bible, check it out.

edit on 2-3-2011 by Secularist because: (no reason given)

I can't disagree with you more. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone", "Judge not, lest you be judged", etc? These aren't Christians in Christ's example/ teachings. They are, rather, a disgrace to God and those who love Him. I can't think of anything more cruel, more inhuman, more immoral, and more predatory than their exploitation of these mourners for the sake of publicity. Christians are not gagged, however. Where are the believers (do local "area councils of churches" still exist?) admonishing their "fellow" Christians (since that's what the Westboro wackos claim to be) as it is laid out in the Bible?

This isn't a matter of "free speech" or the "right to assemble peacefully" or whatever it is. (Peacefully? My God.)
It is a matter of simple decency and the SCOTUS should never have agreed to hear this case.
Thanks to our government, who sanctions the destruction of (seemingly) every previous standard of decorum and civility, welcome to the America where anything goes as some kind of "right".
We haven't got much further to go "downhill" from here. :gak:

reply to post by Xtraeme

I admire your argument, but you're trying to take an ideological position and stand it up as an absolute law of the universe.

Unalienable rights are absolute laws of the universe. All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. Unalienable rights are law in that regard, not as legislative acts, but as law.

There are no natural rights.

You are reifying.

If someone wants to silence another human being and they have the power, it would simply be a matter of performing the job.

If someone wants to stand at the brink of a precipice overlooking a deep abyss and spread their arms and declare they can fly, they have the power to do this. What they do not have is the power to fly by flapping their arms really, really hard and desperately. Their foolish declaration did not change the law of gravity. Their foolishness disregarded the law of gravity.

Inalienable rights are abstract concepts that I and many others wish were inviolable, but in fact are only granted to us by the peaceable agreement of other men.

They are not abstract concepts they are self evident. You want to dismiss their evident nature by pointing to the self evident nature of criminality, but criminality does not preexist unalienable rights, quite the contrary, rights preexist criminality. As I stated earlier, outside of self defense, defense of others, or property, no one has the right to harm another. This does not prevent people from harming others, but law is not about prevention, it simply describes nature as it is. All people have the individual right to self defense. Reification and declaring it otherwise does not change this right. Further, more than just people, all living creatures have the right to self defense.

The rose does not wear its thorns because a Congress of roses agreed that roses had a right to thorns. Porcupines do not wear their needles because a magnanimous ruler decreed it so, and the skunk does not spray its stink because a democracy of animals voted the right to spray stink. These are the methods by which these creatures defend themselves, and they do so by right, not by agreement.

The drafters of the Constitution had the foresight to realize others would try to erode the concept of unalienable rights. So I praise them for their wording standing in defense against it. But, in truth, I realize that my liberties are a function of others affording me the privilege to be free.

Slaves view any privileges they may get as grants given them by their masters. Free people do not agree to this arrangement, nor do they have to. Indeed, it is remarkably foolish to grant to masters the privilege of being master, and this is the only way it can happen. All governments, whether it be tyranny, or otherwise, exist by the consent of the governed, and history is rife with revolutions that show what happens to "governmental social control" when the people rise up and declare that "enough is enough".

I need not your admiration, nor does such obsequiousness convince me to change my course. I will continue to stay the course, and that course, of course, is freedom. Your arguments do not offer any strong defense of freedom, they instead offer strong defense to the artifice of government.

Presumably the judgement also defends the right to protest of anyone would hold a demonstration outside the church itself blaming everything in the world on them because they are a bunch of pig ignorant fascists who would actualy rateehr crush everyone else's rights under their own jack-booted bible, preferably all dressed in pink?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Presumably the judgement also defends the right to protest of anyone would hold a demonstration outside the church itself blaming everything in the world on them because they are a bunch of pig ignorant fascists who would actualy rateehr crush everyone else's rights under their own jack-booted bible, preferably all dressed in pink?

No presumption is necessary, it is self evidently so.

While this is a correct interpretation of the Constitution "to the letter of the law" it was still a disgusting descision.

I firmly believe that Constitutional rights should only be allowed to go so far. Once they start to infringe on someone else's rights (ie, the right to have a funeral in peace and quiet) then the discussion should become moot.

Familes (ANY family) should have a right to bury their dead in peace and in a harmonious setting. Period.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux



It was rhetorical!

I am gay so I obviously don't agree with WBC's message but unfortunately the Court is right, freedom of speech go both ways, not just the way it's convenient to me. It's intolerant, stupid, aggresive and distateful yet they have the right to do it and I have the right to do something about it too (like a counter-protest; that happened a while back in the funeral of Matthew Shepard). Don't forget that the founder members of this church are lawyers so they know exactly what they can or cannot do (such as how many feet away from the burial they are allowed to stand).

On another subject, what I love about this particular church is that they are getting so much hate basically for preaching what the bible says. Pretty much every religion have the very same message, the difference is that the other churches are much more "politically correct" and don't dare to go as far as them. Don't get me wrong, I think WBC are pretty much bastards but deep down I don't think they are any worst than, for example, the catholic church.

reply to post by babybunnies

I firmly believe that Constitutional rights should only be allowed to go so far. Once they start to infringe on someone else's rights (ie, the right to have a funeral in peace and quiet) then the discussion should become moot.

Rights do not trump other rights. My right to "peace and quiet" can only exist in as much as I can create an environment as my own property where peace and quiet can be had. An outdoor funeral has no guarantee of ""peace and quiet", nor is it any self evident right. It is one thing to use your own freedom of speech to denounce the actions of these protesters, it would be another thing entirely if you were to act in some way to prevent them from protesting. There is not one single "Constitutional" right that can infringe upon another right. Governments, and people, on the other hand, can and do infringe upon these rights on a daily basis.

The use of logical fallacies to invent rights not self evidently so and to declare that rights must be restricted to prevent other peoples rights from being restricted is not only backward logic, it leads to justifications of the disparagement of rights. One can simply declare that their right to live in a gun free society is infringed upon by the right of people to keep and bear arms. One can simply declare that their right to live in a world free of religion is infringed upon by peoples right to have a religion of their choosing.

The only way that those protesters could have been stopped from exercising their right to speech was by the use of force, i.e. harming them, and if this harm was not done in self defense, defense of others about to be harmed, or property, then it is not a right to harm the protesters.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I would say they're self evident only in retrospect. Meaning evidence supports the need for rights of all peoples. A declaration of "self evidence" is to try to afford the concept a place of being a truism that requires no thought. That I disagree with.

Your description of standing on the precipice of a cliff and flapping ones arms mightily is highly amusing. It also nicely illustrates how a mob on a rampage cares about as much about the "self evident" articles of the United States as a bull does the porcelain in a china shop.

I understand you addressed this point by arguing that "the self evidence of the nature of criminality ... [does] not preexist unalienable rights." However I think we only truly establish natural rights by looking at the aftermath of a situation gone bad. It's sad that it works this way, but like trying to build a bridge (or anything for that matter) trial and error allows for perfection of design. Put another way the rose only wears its thorns because evolution encouraged it to find a defense against those who pluck it. So I would say "unalienable rights" are a vehicle for representing rights which should have preexisted the self evident nature of criminality.

I honestly have to wonder what would happen if a group came to protest against the protesters of the funeral in the same manner, holding huge hateful signs and yelling inflammatory remarks. Would the original protesters continue to uphold their 'fight for first amendment rights' or would they become violent? They may have the right to say what they want, but so do the people who hate their guts for saying it.

reply to post by EyeHeartBigfoot


I will just say, if my husband got deployed again and didn't come back, i'd probably kill that main crazy lady.

I honestly think i'd go crazy if they invaded my privacy while trying to mourn for my loss.

I honestly think there's a good reason why they haven't come to Texas.

They know us Texans don't take crap from nobody.

The Supreme Court is correct in this decision unfortunately, Freedom of Speech is a fundamental right. It even protects TEA Party Protesters (Er I mean) WBC Members. (Sorry I get the two confused, same ideology and all.)

But just because something is offensive and stupid doesn't mean that people don't have a right to their beliefs. Now I am not saying that the police should look away if they happen to trip repeatedly, or maybe some kind citizen can swat a fly they see on these people's heads, you know how hard it is to swat a fly on someone else's head right?

...everytime wbc is brought up, someone (usually quite a few someones) makes big talk about how they'd love to beat the crap out of the wbc bunch... some even go further... i dont understand the logic that tells them that its okay to be violent because their feelings got hurt... anyone that would physically attack a wbc member is just as vile as the wbc scum and a whole lot dumber...

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


You jsut aren't angry enough - violence is a pretty normal human reaction.

Perhaps in 100,000 years we might evolve out of it........unless WBC/Creation "Scientists"/misc. other fundies are correct and there is no such thing

reply to post by Xtraeme

I would say they're self evident only in retrospect. Meaning evidence supports the need for rights of all peoples.

This is no different than saying that in retrospect, if planets are to orbit a sun then gravity would be a real good idea. It also suggests that prior to some form of "agreement" expressing the need for rights, that people were not all ready defending themselvea. If people were not all ready defending themselves by right, but some council of wise men came along and declared that people had the right to self defense, and did so because in retrospect it occurred to these wise men that people were simply just sacrificing themselves to a bully because no one had granted them the right to self defense. If people were not all ready speaking freely prior to the First Amendment, or publishing freely, how do you explain Thomas Paine's Common Sense? It is truly common sense that people do have the right to self defense, that they do have the right to speak freely, and to publish freely.

A declaration of "self evidence" is to try to afford the concept a place of being a truism that requires no thought.

This is just more reification. It is fallacious to argue that what is self evident requires no thought. What is self evident means it is obvious. No one needs a flashlight to search for the sun at high noon, but this does not mean that people are thoughtlessly aware of the sun at high noon. Some may be, and others not. Gravity did not come into play because Sir Isaac Newton legislated it so, and people were well aware of gravity long before Newton wrote down its mathematical equation. It was not as if gravity was this force that no one offered weight to in terms of thought.

Your description of standing on the precipice of a cliff and flapping ones arms mightily is highly amusing. It also nicely illustrates how a mob on a rampage cares about as much about the "self evident" articles of the United States as a bull does the porcelain in a china shop.

Precisely why legislated rights mean nothing more than the paper they're legislated on. However, a mob that is on a rampage does not erase an individuals right to protect them self from that mob. The self evidence of that right does not disappear with the mob either. It is not as if the mob, when faced with an individual more than willing to defend them self, gets all pouty and declares; "Hey! You don't have a right to do that! No one agreed here agreed that you could defend yourself." What your example demonstrates is just how dangerous democracy can be, and when one is arguing that democracies, after some retrospective consideration, "granted" the "privilege" of self defense, it is only a matter of time before a majority, or some well oiled minority decides this "privilege" to self defense is no longer allowed.

I understand you addressed this point by arguing that "the self evidence of the nature of criminality ... [does] not preexist unalienable rights." However I think we only truly establish natural rights by looking at the aftermath of a situation gone bad.

All laws work in the negative. We establish gravity by looking at the aftermath of an orbit or some other phenomenon. We establish the second law of thermodynamics by looking at the aftermath of entropy in a closed system. What you seem to want to argue is that we establish law to cause justice to reign, but in truth, and when we look at the aftermath, the purpose of law is to keep injustice in check. Justice is not self evident, and is only evident in its absence. It is injustice that is evident. I will defend myself because I am faced with an injustice, not because justice reigns. I will defend my right to speak only when an injustice has compelled me to defend that right. Otherwise there is no need to defend the right to speech. When people begin arguing that speech must be regulated and controlled, injustice, not justice prevails.

It's sad that it work this way, but like trying to build a bridge (or anything else for that matter) trial and error allows for perfection of design.

That trial and error always works within the laws of physics, and rights do as well. If a bridge is not working it is because it is went against the physical laws of nature. No just society will stand as long as the natural rights of individuals are ignored. A poorly built bridge may stand for a while, but the laws of nature demand that at some point it must fall, and so too it is with poorly built governments. When free people agree to become slaves and grant their governments the authority to disparage and trample over their rights, the laws of nature will demand such a government take a fall. History shows us this, time and time again.

Put another way the rose only wears its thorns because evolution encouraged it to find a defense against those who pluck it.

And yet, roses will get plucked. It is actually arguable that roses developed thorns to prevent animals from eating them, but that point is moot. What is not in doubt is that the thorn exists as a defense mechanism but what is in doubt is that a government of the roses, by the roses, and for the roses, agreed to the right for a rose to defend itself.

So I would say "unalienable rights" are a vehicle for representing rights which should have preexisted the self evident nature of criminality.

This is exactly what I have said, sans the diminishment of unalienable rights via quotation marks. Criminality cannot exist until rights have been trampled upon, thus a right is not some retrospective consideration and new invention in the face of criminality, rights are what give cause to government because criminals exist.