Crazy "God Hates Fags" church forced to pay $11 million

[Berzerker]

You have to have a more detalied set of facts to have any kind of meaningful discussion of the issue. Like it or not, SCOTUS Constitutional analysis has been highly fact intensive.

And a disruption means what? They ran up and danced on the fallen soldier's grave during the ceremony? C'mon, this is getting ridiculous. I dont have a privacy right to see only messages I agree with on public land. Thats ironic given how the courts have really cut back on any privacy rights we might claim while out in public.

If I'm wrong about the facts, if they were far from the funeral, if they didn't crowd the funeral procession as it entered the cemetary, if they didn't yell insults at the family and the herse, then I'll change my position and agree with you on this. The facts do matter. The key for me is disruption of ceremonies, including entry to and exit from.

Their presence was an insult, and that is irrelevant. If the ceremony includes going to and from the cemetery, then gays can sue Catholics for protesting outside a church that administers gay weddings. Oh, and abortion clinic protests? Ouch, now protesters can be sued for invading the privacy of women getting abortions. This opens up a can of worms.

I find this to be bumper sticker logic, a superficial attempt to gain some kind of moral highground. It's a pretty slogan, it sounds patriotic. I picture a fife and drum corps behind you when you type it. It's just not persuasive. All or nothing arguments rarely are. I'm all for these people saying whatever they want, and I believe that they should be allowed to publicly assemble to preach their message. I just don't think that they should be able to hide behind the guise of the 1st Amendment to intentionally harrass private people.

If they were intentionally harassing "private" people, they'd be picketing their homes. They were picketing a funeral because it was integral to their message just as Catholics opposed to gay marriage would picket a church for gay marriage (and harass "private people").

You get to decide that some spiteful nutcase can decide that he wants to ruin some of my most precious and emotional private moments? No thanks.

If your "private" moment is in public, then you dont get to decide if anyone around you can hold a sign or wish you only the best.

Standing outside of a church and having a loud protest rally wouldn't disrupt a wedding?

I dont know, why do you keep adding caveats when you've admitted not knowing the facts? Were these people prosecuted for being a public nuisance, ie violating sound ordinances? I'd agree with the suit if these people were standing at the gravesite shouting at people, but I see no evidence for that.

Not a chance. Anne Coulter's a public figure. They're treated differently than private figures. Huslter v Falwell disallows on 1st amendment grounds IIED claims for public figures.

I dont see anything in the 4th Amendment that makes a distinction between my privacy and the privacy of "public" figures. If you're invading one, you're invading the other. And Hustler v Falwell wasn't about privacy.

[Berzerker]

In that sentence the phrase "for calling theem an abomination" tells us what the suit is for, not whci Church.

Yes it does, the Church that calls gays an abomination to God. If a church doesn't call them an abomination, then OBVIOUSLY that aint the church calling gays an abomination

If you had wanted to identify the Church you could have said "The gays can sue the Church which ( or that) called them an abomination."

I did,

"The gays can sue the Church for calling them an abomination."

Why do you keep equating the Church that calls gays an abomination with churches that dont? And then why do you accuse me of using a generalization when YOU are the one making the generalization?

[Dr Strangelove]

You said you were talking about the Roman Catholic Church, not "the church that calls gays an abomination". Are you changing your mind as to which Church you were talking about? You might have been referring to the Westboro Baptist Church, the Southern Baptist Convention Churches, or any number of churches.

Among Christians the phrase "the Church" is an abstraction referring to all of the collective Christian churches together.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Berzerker
And a disruption means what? They ran up and danced on the fallen soldier's grave during the ceremony?

That certainly would be a disruption. How about being loud enough to interfere with the ceremony? How about crowding the entraces & exits to make it difficult to enter and exit the ceremony? What about yelling insults at people as the enter and exit the ceremony?

Fighting words doctrine could provide some structure to what is and is not a disruption.

I dont have a privacy right to see only messages I agree with on public land.

That's not even close to being my argument, and I've made that clear.

Their presence was an insult, and that is irrelevant.

It's very relevant for IIED purposes.

If the ceremony includes going to and from the cemetery, then gays can sue Catholics for protesting outside a church that administers gay weddings. Oh, and abortion clinic protests? Ouch, now protesters can be sued for invading the privacy of women getting abortions.

Which are you focusing on? The IIED claim or the privacy claim? You keep using them interchangeably, despite the fact that they're very different claims

If they were intentionally harassing "private" people, they'd be picketing their homes.

Maybe they don't want to get arrested for trespassing or stalking.

I dont know, why do you keep adding caveats when you've admitted not knowing the facts?

Because I'm trying to flesh out your threadbare hypothetical. Protesting outside a wedding could mean many things. I thought that my previous comments on the topic were sufficient to allow you to understand what I meant here without having to write everything out ad naseum.

My brief answer here was to show that a protest could disrupt a wedding. I was responding to your statement that the presence of protesters outside a funeral couldn't disrupt the ceremony "...any more than Catholics standing outside a church protesting gay weddings." A loud group outside a church could disrupt a wedding. A group of protestors crowding the sidewalk outside the church and making it tough the pass through could disrupt a wedding.

Were these people prosecuted for being a public nuisance, ie violating sound ordinances? I'd agree with the suit if these people were standing at the gravesite shouting at people,

But surely that would be interfering with the people's sacred right of spreading their message! Being loud is central to their message that God is coming to destroy America! It's no time for them to be quiet! So what if people have to put up with the annoyance of being screamed at during a funeral ceremony? If those mourners wanted quiet, then they should have buried thier dead in a private cemetary!

I dont see anything in the 4th Amendment that makes a distinction between my privacy and the privacy of "public" figures. If you're invading one, you're invading the other. And Hustler v Falwell wasn't about privacy.

"We conclude that public figures and public officials may not recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of publications such as the one here at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true."

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 56 (1988).

You're confused about the Constitutional issues.

The IIED claim isn't a 4th or 5th Amendment case.

The public figure / private figure distinction, which I have been refrencing, has been an important part of 1st Amendment jurisprudence since at least as far back as New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). This sense of "privacy" is related to but distinct from the 4th and 5th Amendment expectations of privacy. Speech and conduct directed towards public figures is given more Constitutional protection than speech and conduct directed toward private figures, based on the idea that criticism of public figures is crucial to our way of life. This area has mostly focused on defamation, but defamation and IIED have some overlap.

The important thing as applies to this case is that it's almost impossible for a public figure to win an IIED suit against someone. There would have to be an actual, knowing, believable lie being presented as truth. That's why Anne Coulter couldn't sue hecklers for calling her a pig.

As for private figures, as the parents in this case would be, they'd only need to establish that the actions of Phelps and co were extremely offensive. That's where the fact intensive scrutiny comes in. That's where social concepts of privacy and propriety come in. This application of privacy concepts isn't a Constitutional review of them; it's a community standards type review. The 4th and 5th Amendments do not come into play here.


I think that your argument against the IIED claim ultimately boils down to the contentions that that the Phelps' speech and actions weren't directed towards these people at all, that the parents' were completely irrelevant to their message (even though Roper-Phelps was mocking these parents' "crocodile tears" on her website), and that ultimately, as a matter of law, the Phelps' didn't do anything that could be considered outrageously offensive because they were merely exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

The jury disagreed. It found from the facts that these people intentionally acted in an extremely outrageous fashion, causing the parents to suffer extreme emotional distress. An appellate court could overturn this verdict if it determines, as a matter of law, that the Phelps' actions weren't extremely outrageous. It might rest that determination on 1st Amendment grounds. It wouldn't overturn this on 4th or 5th Amendment analysis, though.

[Barnabas]

The church does not sayd homosexuals are an abomination to the lord, it says homosexual acts (like gay sex) are an abomination.
And that people with a homosexual tendency should abstain from those acts.


I think the gaysexabomination thing is something written in the bible, pretty much like that. So I am sure many non catholic christians also believe that.

[Berzerker]

You said you were talking about the Roman Catholic Church, not "the church that calls gays an abomination". Are you changing your mind as to which Church you were talking about? You might have been referring to the Westboro Baptist Church, the Southern Baptist Convention Churches, or any number of churches.

Among Christians the phrase "the Church" is an abstraction referring to all of the collective Christian churches together.

Doc, what is it with you? Seriously, this inanity is The Roman Catholic Church is the "Church" and I want to know if it can be sued for calling gays an abomination. Why did you confuse that with your church that does not call gays an abomination? You still haven't explained why you couldn't figure that out. And thats BS, try telling Southern Baptists they are part of the same Church as the Pope. The reason why the US and Europe have so many smaller branches of Christianity is out of a more recent rejection of "the Church". Dont tell me you never heard of the Catholic Church referred to as "the Church".

YOU are generalizing about Christians, not me. You cant make a distinction between Christians who call gays an abomination and Christians who dont.

The church does not sayd homosexuals are an abomination to the lord, it says homosexual acts (like gay sex) are an abomination.
And that people with a homosexual tendency should abstain from those acts.

I think the gaysexabomination thing is something written in the bible, pretty much like that. So I am sure many non catholic christians also believe that.

That they do, but they weren't in my question, just the Church that calls gays an abomination. And your distinction between gays and gays who have gay sex is irrelevant, if the Phelps gang can be sued for bringing mental anguish to funeral attendees, gays can sue the Church and any other religious groups that runs around calling them an abomination to God.

Wycoff, just address my point

If the ceremony includes going to and from the cemetery, then gays can sue Catholics for protesting outside a church that administers gay weddings. Oh, and abortion clinic protests? Ouch, now protesters can be sued for invading the privacy of women getting abortions.

All these protesters are in plain sight and sound of the gays getting married and the women getting abortions. Can they sue for mental anguish or not? Falwell didn't sue because of any privacy right, he sued because it was slanderous. I'm talking about the actual case, not the court's machinations.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Wycoff, just address my point

I've tried. Multiple times. You don't understand your own point.

If the ceremony includes going to and from the cemetery, then gays can sue Catholics for protesting outside a church that administers gay weddings. Oh, and abortion clinic protests? Ouch, now protesters can be sued for invading the privacy of women getting abortions.

All these protesters are in plain sight and sound of the gays getting married and the women getting abortions. Can they sue for mental anguish or not?

They probably couldn't have a viable invasion of privacy suit. The level of viaibility of that claim would depend on the particular state's privacy tort regime (there are actually 4 different forms of "invasion of privacy"-intrusion, false lights, misappropriation, and public disclosure of private facts- each with their own set of elements. They're not universally recognized. Each state has its own particular set of laws on the issue. I don't want to further muddy the waters, though, so I won't go further into that) but, no matter what the state, invasion of privacy wouldn't be a winner unless the protestors actually entered the church during the ceremony / abortion room during a doctor-patient meeting.

They might have a viable suit for IIED (or, as you called it, "mental anguish"), but it depends on the actions of the protestors. I know that you think that your hypo is completely self explanatory and needs no factual illumination, but it does.

Your question is similar to asking. "It's a clear day outside, and the sun is shining. Is it hot outside or not?" and then getting mad when I ask what month it is or whether or not it is windy.

Falwell didn't sue because of any privacy right, he sued because it was slanderous. I'm talking about the actual case, not the court's machinations.

Falwell actually sued for three distinct torts- invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. This recitation of claims is the actual case as brought by Jerry Falwell:

"Petitioner Hustler Magazine, Inc., is a magazine of nationwide circulation. Respondent Jerry Falwell, a nationally known minister who has been active as a commentator on politics and public affairs, sued petitioner and its publisher, petitioner Larry Flynt, to recover damages for invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress." Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 47-48 (1987).

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/hustler.html

You don't seem to understand the differences between invasion of privacy and IIED. They're completely different torts. Some concept of personal privacy may weigh in on deciding whether or not the defendant's activity was extremely outrageous, and thus there may be some overlap between the two claims, but an IIED isn't an invasion of privacy claim. You need to prove different things.

Falwell sued for both of those torts, as well as for the tort of defamation (libel) in this case. He lost as a matter of law at the trial level on the invasion of privacy issue. He lost his libel action at the trial level as well, because the parody was clearly marked as not being true and no reasonable person could have believed that it was presented as truth. The IIED issue, however, was thorny enough to make it to the Supreme Court.

I really don't know what else to tell you on the subject.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Doc, what is it with you? Seriously, this inanity is The Roman Catholic Church is the "Church" and I want to know if it can be sued for calling gays an abomination. Why did you confuse that with your church that does not call gays an abomination? You still haven't explained why you couldn't figure that out. And thats BS, try telling Southern Baptists they are part of the same Church as the Pope. The reason why the US and Europe have so many smaller branches of Christianity is out of a more recent rejection of "the Church". Dont tell me you never heard of the Catholic Church referred to as "the Church".

I've heard of many churches referred to as "the Church". The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church is still definitely a minority among Christians in the US and if you asked most American what "the Church" is I doubt that the majority would respond that it is the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore even Southern Baptists are a minority among American Christians. There are many denominations in addition to the Episcopals who consider "the Church" to be the collective body of all believers. It's what Ecumenicism is all about. When it comes right down to it you don't know much about contemporary trends in Christianity inb the US and the world?

YOU are generalizing about Christians, not me. You cant make a distinction between Christians who call gays an abomination and Christians who dont.

Cute, but I'm not biting. See my comment above.

Ouch, now protesters can be sued for invading the privacy of women getting abortions.

IIRC SCOTUS ruled many years ago that abortion protestors had to keep a rather generous distance from abortion clinics, somewhere in the vicinity of 50 to 100 yards, that they could not use public property, i.e., sidewalks and roads, and that they could not speak to persons entering or leaving the clinics or hinder them in anyway. You may have noticed that abortion clinic protests are virtually unheard of these days. IIRC the lawsuit from which this ruling resulted arose out of a claim of emotional injury.

[Berzerker]

I've tried. Multiple times. You don't understand your own point.

Wycoff, just address my point

If the ceremony includes going to and from the cemetery, then gays can sue Catholics for protesting outside a church that administers gay weddings. Oh, and abortion clinic protests? Ouch, now protesters can be sued for invading the privacy of women getting abortions.

All these protesters are in plain sight and sound of the gays getting married and the women getting abortions. Can they sue for mental anguish or not?

All you gave me was a Hillary answer

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Wycoff, just address my point

If the ceremony includes going to and from the cemetery, then gays can sue Catholics for protesting outside a church that administers gay weddings. Oh, and abortion clinic protests? Ouch, now protesters can be sued for invading the privacy of women getting abortions.

All these protesters are in plain sight and sound of the gays getting married and the women getting abortions. Can they sue for mental anguish or not?

All you gave me was a Hillary answer

You want an answer that doesn't take into consideration any substantive law or factual context. Why even bother having a discussion?

Here's your answer-

Yes, they can sue for IIED ("mental anguish").

[Berzerker]

The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church is still definitely a minority among Christians in the US

And it is by FAR the largest Church. You actually argued that your church - the Anglican Church - with a membership of maybe 2 million people (if that) can easily be confused with the Church of the Pope with a membership here in the US over 70 million as of 2004, not to mention the Church's membership all over the world.
That aint even close to reasonable, and you still haven't explained why you confused your church with the Church that calls gays an abomination. You wont even acknowledge that as a qualifier, so what is it?

and if you asked most American what "the Church" is I doubt that the majority would respond that it is the Roman Catholic Church.

Based on your own ignorance? Or have you heard the Catholic Church referred to as 'the Church" too?

Furthermore even Southern Baptists are a minority among American Christians.

So is your group, so what? You said Christians view the term "the Church" as a reference to all of Christianity and I proved you wrong. Do y'all take orders from the Pope now?

There are many denominations in addition to the Episcopals who consider "the Church" to be the collective body of all believers. It's what Ecumenicism is all about. When it comes right down to it you don't know much about contemporary trends in Christianity inb the US and the world?

I know enough to know "the Church" is used more often to identify the Catholic Church than any other "Church" in this country and only somebody with a stick up their a$$ would b!tch and moan about the use of the term to identify the Catholic Church. And only someone with leaves for brains would confuse their own church with "the Church that calls gays an abomination to God". You dont even have the balls to admit you were wrong when you said I didn't use any qualifiers.

IIRC SCOTUS ruled many years ago that abortion protestors had to keep a rather generous distance from abortion clinics, somewhere in the vicinity of 50 to 100 yards, that they could not use public property, i.e., sidewalks and roads, and that they could not speak to persons entering or leaving the clinics or hinder them in anyway. You may have noticed that abortion clinic protests are virtually unheard of these days. IIRC the lawsuit from which this ruling resulted arose out of a claim of emotional injury.

I think you're confusing the lawsuit that targeted groups linked to bombers and other attacks liking rushing buildings and using handcuffs to chain themselves inside. Show me the ruling that says they cant use public property. And I doubt the Phelps gang was talking to funeral attendees as they drove by, but if you can cite the case I'd be happy to read it because I'm pretty sure you got some of that wrong. The tactics of abortion protesters went far beyond free speech.

[Berzerker]

Oh yeah Doc, here is what you originally said when I referred to the Church that calls gays an abomination

I'll thank you to qualify what you mean by "church". right now my church is facing an ass-kicking via a bunch of African bishops in the pay of an American group of wealthy conservatives just because it refused to discriminate against gays.

Nothing in there about all of Christianity, just your church.
And I provided 2 qualifiers, you just lack the spine to admit you were wrong. You still haven't explained why you confused churches that dont call gays an abomination with "the Church" that does. Hell, you didn't even notice that I capitalized Church. You are generalizing about Christians, not me.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker


And it is by FAR the largest Church. You actually argued that your church - the Anglican Church - with a membership of maybe 2 million people (if that) can easily be confused with the Church of the Pope with a membership here in the US over 70 million as of 2004, not to mention the Church's membership all over the world.

Once again, still a minority in the US. As you implied earlier yourself Southern Baptists would not include themselves with the Roman Catholics, now you're saying that despite that when Southern Baptists use the word "the Church" they refer to the Roamn catholic Church? Are you saying that Baptists don't go to church. The fact is there are about 250 million Christians in the US. 70 million are Roman Catholics and might be expected to mean the Roman Church when they say "the Church". What about the other 180 million? Do you honestly expect me or anyone else here to believe you when you claim that when these 180 million protestants say the word "the Church" they're referring to the Roman Catholic Church and not their own?

That aint even close to reasonable, and you still haven't explained why you confused your church with the Church that calls gays an abomination. You wont even acknowledge that as a qualifier, so what is it?

In the structure of that sentence the phrase in question does not modify the noun "the Church", it describes the action that gays may undertake.

Based on your own ignorance? Or have you heard the Catholic Church referred to as 'the Church" too?

Yes, by Catholics, but not by protestants.

So is your group, so what? You said Christians view the term "the Church" as a reference to all of Christianity and I proved you wrong. Do y'all take orders from the Pope now?

You haven't proven anything. How deep into religion are you really? Do you go to Church often, or talk about religion with a variety of people?

I know enough to know "the Church" is used more often to identify the Catholic Church than any other "Church" in this country and only somebody with a stick up their a$$ would b!tch and moan about the use of the term to identify the Catholic Church. And only someone with leaves for brains would confuse their own church with "the Church that calls gays an abomination to God". You dont even have the balls to admit you were wrong when you said I didn't use any qualifiers.

This has been covered before.

I think you're confusing the lawsuit that targeted groups linked to bombers and other attacks liking rushing buildings and using handcuffs to chain themselves inside. Show me the ruling that says they cant use public property. And I doubt the Phelps gang was talking to funeral attendees as they drove by, but if you can cite the case I'd be happy to read it because I'm pretty sure you got some of that wrong. The tactics of abortion protesters went far beyond free speech.

The SCOTUS ruling however was applied to all abortion protestors, not just that one group.

I've seen newscasts of Phelps people protesting at the funeral of gay people slain in a bar. They run along the cars as they enter the funeral home, lean over the cars and shout at the participants.

[Berzerker]

Once again, still a minority in the US.

So what? The Catholic Church is by far the largest Church in the country. Notice how I didn't say Christians who call gays an abomination? I said "the Church". But if I did say Christians who call gays an abomination, wouldn't that mean I'm talking about Christians WHO CALL GAYS AN ABOMINATION and not Christians who dont? Doh!

As you implied earlier yourself Southern Baptists would not include themselves with the Roman Catholics, now you're saying that despite that when Southern Baptists use the word "the Church" they refer to the Roamn catholic Church? Are you saying that Baptists don't go to church.

Am I saying they dont go to church? Go right ahead and ask southern Baptists if "the Church" is a common reference to the Catholic Church. Go ahead. They know the difference between their own churches and "the Church", they spend alot of time griping about "the Church". You see, the word is capitalized for a reason (thats called a qualifier) because it refers to a specific church - the Catholic Church. The historical reasons for this are well known, for centuries the Church meant the Vatican and that carried over after Christians began splintering off into their own religions. But if you want to argue that reasonable people would naturally confuse "the Church" with your little Anglican Church, dont expect me to buy that nonsense. Btw, I'm sure Southern Baptists share the Church's view on gays, so they could also be sued if they go and protest gay weddings.

In the structure of that sentence the phrase in question does not modify the noun "the Church", it describes the action that gays may undertake.

This is what I said, can gays sue the Church for calling them an abomination to God? Calling someone an abomination to God is not an action? Therein lies the problem, you cant figure that out. Would you care to start a poll to find out how many people here think you're right? Jesus H Christ, Doc. The second half of the sentence makes the obvious distinction between the Church that calls gays an abomination and churches that dont - thats a qualifier. Furthermore, it wouldn't matter if "the Church" referred to more churches than the Catholic Church, it would still mean churches that call gays an abomination.

Yes, by Catholics, but not by protestants.

I am a Catholic, can I use the Church for the Catholic Church? And BS, dont tell me Protestants dont ever refer to the Catholic Church as the Church. You just make these ridiculous claims you cant even try to back up.

You haven't proven anything. How deep into religion are you really? Do you go to Church often, or talk about religion with a variety of people?

Hey Doc, you're giving me lectures in sentence structure and you always capitalize "Church"? First you confused "the Church" with your church, then you said Christians think "the Church" is a reference to all of Christianity. I pointed out southern Baptists do not share kinship with the Vatican. Your "rebuttal"? Southern Baptists are a minority of Christians. You just keep changing your argument. If I was in your position I would have apologized long ago.

I'll thank you to qualify what you mean by "church". right now my church is facing an ass-kicking via a bunch of African bishops in the pay of an American group of wealthy conservatives just because it refused to discriminate against gays.

You didn't complain because "the Church" refers to all Christians but because your church doesn't discriminate against gays. So why would your church be sued for protesting gay weddings? You didn't think at all about this before getting offended. There is nothing logical about your accusation.

The SCOTUS ruling however was applied to all abortion protestors, not just that one group.

Where is this ruling that says protesters cant stand on public property?

I've seen newscasts of Phelps people protesting at the funeral of gay people slain in a bar. They run along the cars as they enter the funeral home, lean over the cars and shout at the participants.

Well my God, protesters never engage in such tactics. And now people can be sued for pestering others in public. You will be hearing from my lawyer

[Dr Strangelove]

"the Church that calls them an abomination to God"

That's not what you said. The original sentence was "Gays can sue the Church for calling them an abomination to God". Are you DanS-ing me? Any one can see that the words "for" and "that" mean something entirely different.

If you have realised that you made a mistake in your original sentence you could at least be honest enough to say: "oops, I goofed, I meant to say the Church that called instead of the Church for calling." If that's true how do you look for having wasted so much huburis before correcting your mistake? OTOH it may be that as I impolicated you did indeed mean to accuse Christians in general, but now that you realise the hypocrisy in doing so you're covering your tracks. Smooth.