So that "God hates ****" church is going under... :: World of Warcraft

Quote Reply

#52 Nov 02 2007 at 11:18 AM Rating: Decent

Zackary

Prettier Than You

12,975 posts

Matjlav wrote:

This is a bad move in my opinion... free speech is free speech. No matter how downright nutty the message is.

If they were civil rights activists protesting at the funeral of a KKK leader, would you be saying the same things?

Much like privileges, rights should be taken away when blatantly abused and/or disregarded.

It is your right to own a gun. It's not okay to use said gun to harm another person. See what I'm getting at, here?

____________________________

Did you lose faith?
Yes, I lost faith in the powers that be.
But in doing so I came across the will to disagree.
And I gave up. Yes, I gave up, and then I gave in.
But I take responsibility for every single sin. â™ª â™«

Thank god I stopped playing MMOs.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#53 Nov 02 2007 at 11:18 AM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

StubsOnAsura the Shady wrote:

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

StubsOnAsura the Shady wrote:

Just put your cursor in the address bar at the end and hit enter. It's filtering out people linking to it, but if you access the address directly, it works.

Ooooh...

Zackary, you're my new favorite.

But.. but.. I assisted in the delivery... Smiley: cry

You can be my defiant second, if you like.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#54 Nov 02 2007 at 11:18 AM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

Matjlav wrote:

This is a bad move in my opinion... free speech is free speech. No matter how downright nutty the message is.

If they were civil rights activists protesting at the funeral of a KKK leader, would you be saying the same things?

First of all: yes. A funeral is a funeral. Someone shuffling off this mortal coil is never a time for politics.

Second: the funeral they were protesting at had nothing to do with homosexuality. They are ******** insane. The man died a soldier's death in the service.

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#55 Nov 02 2007 at 11:35 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1591802081118

View User Forum

Sage

8,747 posts

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

Quote:

The church, which is unaffiliated with any major denomination, is headed by Rev. Fred Phelps, who has led a campaign against homosexuality for years. Most of the estimated 70 members of the church belong to his extended family.

Pathetic.

http://www.examiner.com/a-1024528~Fred_Phelps__estranged_son_speaks_out.html

Edited, Nov 2nd 2007 12:35pm by Tsukinomahou

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#56 Nov 02 2007 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Professor Tsukinomahou wrote:

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

Quote:

The church, which is unaffiliated with any major denomination, is headed by Rev. Fred Phelps, who has led a campaign against homosexuality for years. Most of the estimated 70 members of the church belong to his extended family.

Pathetic.

http://www.examiner.com/a-1024528~Fred_Phelps__estranged_son_speaks_out.html

Edited, Nov 2nd 2007 12:35pm by Tsukinomahou

Quote:

Clergy welcomed the news of the lawsuitâ€™s success.

My respect for the clergy is rising...

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#57 Nov 02 2007 at 11:39 AM Rating: Excellent

Samira

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Kaain wrote:

True, that may be the case now, but I doubt they started out that way. A lot of non-denominational churches end up with the same "holier than thou" attitude and look down on everyone else (even if they share the same views) that doesn't belong to their little group.

I attended one in it's early stages and had the utmost respect for them, but as the years went by it became more and more twisted until they lost sight of what they set out to do.

I have no idea how they started out. Seeing as how they're in a pretty conservative area already I have to think that even the local Pentecostals weren't extreme enough for them, or didn't espouse their special brand of bile.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#58 Nov 02 2007 at 2:49 PM Rating: Good

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:

Second: the funeral they were protesting at had nothing to do with homosexuality. They are bat-sh*t insane. The man died a soldier's death in the service.

The kind of second stage logic they're using isn't actually that uncommon, even among "intellectuals". They argue that the suffering of the US is caused by God as a response to the US allowing homosexuality. It's important to note that they're not saying that the soldier is gay. Only that he died because he fought for a country that allows them to exist.

Honestly, it's not much different then the kind of argument made by Ward Churchill in an essay he wrote about 9/11

Basically he says that the people who died on 9/11 deserved it because they participated in a system that did bad things to people in the Middle East. Note, he's not saying that each of those people individually did. Only that since they were citizens of a nation that did those things, that it wasn't unfair for them to die as a result of any response to that.

The only real difference is that the Phelpses believe that it's God handing out the punishment instead of a group of angry Muslims. The core idea that someone's death is somehow justified because that person didn't sufficiently oppose some other "evil" is essentially identical. The soldiers fight for a nation that allows homosexuality. The people in the Wold Trade center worked in the financial institutions of a government that oppressed people in the Middle East. Same exact argument. Same lunacy.

With perhaps the difference that the Phelpses are known idiots and no one takes them seriously where as Churchill was a tenured professor teaching students at a publicly funded university.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#59 Nov 02 2007 at 4:19 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1646612214229

View User Forum

Scholar

16,127 posts

Another brilliantly fierce example of why Theism needs to be dropped off a cliff.

WTG Christianity! Thanks for pointing out what I've known about you all along.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#60 Nov 02 2007 at 4:27 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636385462

Sage

15,512 posts

Dread Lord Rimesume wrote:

Another brilliantly fierce example of why Theism needs to be dropped off a cliff.

WTG Christianity! Thanks for pointing out what I've known about you all along.

I see it more as a free advertisement for anti-loony drugs.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#61 Nov 02 2007 at 4:31 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1596990078323

View User Forum

Sage

19,727 posts

Dread Lord Rimesume wrote:

Another brilliantly fierce example of why Theism needs to be dropped off a cliff.

WTG Christianity! Thanks for pointing out what I've known about you all along.

Perhaps the only thing stupider than the Phelpses themselves is trying to paint all of religion with that brush.

Oops, I forgot. Your girlfriend is way dumber than the Phelps people, too. So that's two things dumber than these people.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#62 Nov 02 2007 at 4:42 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1605485900580

View User Forum

Scholar

7,805 posts

Dread Lord Rimesume wrote:

Another brilliantly fierce example of why Theism needs to be dropped off a cliff.

WTG Christianity! Thanks for pointing out what I've known about you all along.

It's not even worth responding anymore.

You're such a stupid ignorant **** Rimesume.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#63 Nov 02 2007 at 5:16 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1591801081291

2,473 posts

Zackary wrote:

Much like privileges, rights should be taken away when blatantly abused and/or disregarded.

It is your right to own a gun. It's not okay to use said gun to harm another person. See what I'm getting at, here?

I fail to see how they're abusing their right to free speech.

The fact is, free speech entails all speech. No matter how ugly or ******* insane it is. Because when we start taking responsibility to label certain contents of speech as "abuse of their right", then it doesn't really seem like we have free speech at all, does it?

Outside of speech that endangers people, free speech is a right that I really don't think it's smart for us to go messing with and changing.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#64 Nov 02 2007 at 5:31 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1658708287938

View User Forum

Sage

9,507 posts

Borkachev wrote:

But emotional distress is such a slippery thing. If my protests against his use of slave labour make The Gap's CEO cry at night, does he have a case against me?

Edited, Nov 2nd 2007 12:46pm by Borkachev

I believe that emotional distress, in and of itself, isn't enough to receive damages. It's the invasion of privacy issue that is making this stick.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#65 Nov 02 2007 at 5:33 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1591801081291

2,473 posts

Lubriderm the Hand wrote:

Borkachev wrote:

But emotional distress is such a slippery thing. If my protests against his use of slave labour make The Gap's CEO cry at night, does he have a case against me?

Edited, Nov 2nd 2007 12:46pm by Borkachev

I believe that emotional distress, in and of itself, isn't enough to receive damages. It's the invasion of privacy issue that is making this stick.

Really, though, as long as they don't come into private property uninvited, there is no legal invasion of privacy here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#66 Nov 02 2007 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent

Tasera

View User Forum

Sage

1,738 posts

Calling the Phelps psycho pack Christians is like calling manwithplanx a typical OOT poster. Either way, you're going to **** a lot of people off.

____________________________

Mazra wrote:

I looked out the window and saw a big fireball in the sky. I'm not going outside until it's gone.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#67 Nov 02 2007 at 5:37 PM Rating: Excellent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Zackary wrote:

Much like privileges, rights should be taken away when blatantly abused and/or disregarded.

Please tell me you're not actually equating rights and privileges?

I could go into the many ways and reasons this is wrong, but it would take more time then you probably have.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#68 Nov 02 2007 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1658708287938

View User Forum

Sage

9,507 posts

Matjlav wrote:

Lubriderm the Hand wrote:

Borkachev wrote:

But emotional distress is such a slippery thing. If my protests against his use of slave labour make The Gap's CEO cry at night, does he have a case against me?

Edited, Nov 2nd 2007 12:46pm by Borkachev

I believe that emotional distress, in and of itself, isn't enough to receive damages. It's the invasion of privacy issue that is making this stick.

Really, though, as long as they don't come into private property uninvited, there is no legal invasion of privacy here.

Actually, according to that state's law, there is. We also have to remember that freedom of speech isn't universal. You can't yell 'bomb' in a crowded public place. These people are intentionally trying to mar people's funerals. They are trying to inflict direct emotional harm. I would have absolutely no problem with them if they wanted to parade around Times Square or that Mall thingy in DC.

I do, however, think that 11M is excessive. If the plaintiffs are able to collect by any means possible, these people will could lose their homes, and such, which I don't think would be right.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#69 Nov 02 2007 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Matjlav wrote:

Lubriderm the Hand wrote:

I believe that emotional distress, in and of itself, isn't enough to receive damages. It's the invasion of privacy issue that is making this stick.

Really, though, as long as they don't come into private property uninvited, there is no legal invasion of privacy here.

Correct. My understanding (at least what they normally do) is that they conduct their protest according to whatever laws there are regarding protests. If the law says they have to be 100 feet away from an event on publicly accessible property (like a funeral), then they're 100 feet away.

They have not been charged with violating any laws as far as I know. Had they done so, they'd have been charged with trespassing, unlawful assembly, or some other similar crime. They were not, so we can conclude that the plaintiffs "privacy" was not violated. They sued anyway and were granted a win largely because people don't like the Phelpses.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like them either, but that's a horrible reason to award a settlement to someone, especially when there's a very real 1st amendment issue at stake.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#70 Nov 02 2007 at 5:43 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1591801081291

2,473 posts

gbaji wrote:

Correct. My understanding (at least what they normally do) is that they conduct their protest according to whatever laws there are regarding protests. If the law says they have to be 100 feet away from an event on publicly accessible property (like a funeral), then they're 100 feet away.

They have not been charged with violating any laws as far as I know. Had they done so, they'd have been charged with trespassing, unlawful assembly, or some other similar crime. They were not, so we can conclude that the plaintiffs "privacy" was not violated. They sued anyway and were granted a win largely because people don't like the Phelpses.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like them either, but that's a horrible reason to award a settlement to someone, especially when there's a very real 1st amendment issue at stake.

I... (cough)... agree with gbaji.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#71 Nov 02 2007 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent

PunkFloyd

View User Forum

Sage

4,901 posts

gbaji wrote:

Matjlav wrote:

Lubriderm the Hand wrote:

I believe that emotional distress, in and of itself, isn't enough to receive damages. It's the invasion of privacy issue that is making this stick.

Really, though, as long as they don't come into private property uninvited, there is no legal invasion of privacy here.

Correct. My understanding (at least what they normally do) is that they conduct their protest according to whatever laws there are regarding protests. If the law says they have to be 100 feet away from an event on publicly accessible property (like a funeral), then they're 100 feet away.

They have not been charged with violating any laws as far as I know. Had they done so, they'd have been charged with trespassing, unlawful assembly, or some other similar crime. They were not, so we can conclude that the plaintiffs "privacy" was not violated. They sued anyway and were granted a win largely because people don't like the Phelpses.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like them either, but that's a horrible reason to award a settlement to someone, especially when there's a very real 1st amendment issue at stake.

Oh, please that's just a bunch of neoconservative babble! ;) I kid, gbaji. Well said.

You're from San Diego area, right? Hope you and yours are okay from the fires.

____________________________

Love,
PunkFloyd

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#72 Nov 02 2007 at 11:51 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1646612214229

View User Forum

Scholar

16,127 posts

I see I've offended someone.

Okay, the laughable conceptualization of "God" isn't bad, just the morans that represent him.

As we can all agree, this situation is a beautiful harmony of forgiveness, understanding, tolerance, and compassion. Smiley: rolleyes

Don't get your panties in a bunch because your wonderful 'Word' breeds stupidity, and blind hatred that has, is now, and will in the future cause so much needless suffering. It is faux pas to use religion to hate Blacks, so it looks like homosexuals are the new 'in' thing.

Grandfather Barkingturtle wrote:

Dread Lord Rimesume wrote:

Another brilliantly fierce example of why Theism needs to be dropped off a cliff.

WTG Christianity! Thanks for pointing out what I've known about you all along.

Perhaps the only thing stupider than the Phelpses themselves is trying to paint all of religion with that brush.

Normally I would agree, but after fine examples like this (wouldn't be the first time either), David Koresh, Ted Haggard, William Joseph Simmons, and Jim Baker I find it hard to agree with. Let's not forget the child molesting preachers, pastors, fathers, etc. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice patterns, and poor behavioral habits.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2007 3:27am by Rimesume

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#73 Nov 03 2007 at 1:44 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1609114763289

View User Forum

Sage

865 posts

As an earlier poster noted, I don't know why they didn't go with defamation of character. Seems to me a much more likely to stick and not be struck down sort of approach.

At this point I can only see this standing if the outer courts find that this sort of protesting is non-protected speech. Unlikely.

It's a shame too, I'm sure Phelps will grow even bolder if this is struck down.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#74 Nov 03 2007 at 4:02 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1605485900580

View User Forum

Scholar

7,805 posts

You're one of the dumb ones, I'm not going to argue it with you because I truely feel angry. You make all Atheists I know look bad, and you're a disgraceful one at that.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2007 6:45am by LobsterJohnson

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#75 Nov 03 2007 at 4:19 AM Rating: Default

__DEL__1646612214229

View User Forum

Scholar

16,127 posts

LobsterJohnson the Sly wrote:

You win, I'm a child molester because I believe in god.

Are you done? I mean seriously, I love getting words put into my posts.

I did not say, nor imply, anyone who believes in a god is a child molester. What I did do is give several examples as to why Theism is such an obvious failure in social understanding.

I firmly believe that every Theist is certainly capable of doing morally reprehensible actions, just as well as a non-Theist. The significant difference being is, you won't find a non-Theist telling people they suck for whatever reason, and then later being caught doing the same. To say you could say the same for Theism is laughable.

Also, a non-Theist has better **** to do with their time than picket at a fallen soldiers funeral. Here this family was made to suffer to great ends just because of having to bear the burden of burying their child. Yet, ba-da-ba-ba-da-daaa here comes religion not to comfort, help, or give condolence to this family, but to bring further pain, and suffering to them. If you claim this is the first time you are obviously mistaken and seriously need to consult Google.

The actions of this church is beyond disgusting. Argue the Constitution end of it all you want, but every single one of you know that if you were in the shoes of this family, you too would be utterly disgusted.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#76 Nov 03 2007 at 4:22 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1605485900580

View User Forum

Scholar

7,805 posts

You're one of the dumb ones, I'm not going to argue it with you because I truely feel angry. You make all Atheists I know look bad, and you're a disgraceful one at that.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2007 6:44am by LobsterJohnson

▲ Page top

So that "God hates ****" church is going under...Follow