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

[DinoDoc]

Reduced? Maybe. Overturned? I doubt it.

[TCO]

It ought to.

[Straybow]

$11k for IIED is more reasonable. Maybe for each immediate family member. I don't agree with Phelps et al, but it is just people holding signs and shouting as they drove past.

[TCO]

Zero is reasonable.

[DinoDoc]

A good ass kicking would be better.

[TCO]

I agree in a sense. Actually I don't agree with a battery. I do agree that the speech may be hurtful. And it should be declaimed. But I don't like the whole PC thing with people getting their feelings hurt and saying they have a greivance from hate speech.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by TCO
I agree in a sense. Actually I don't agree with a battery. I do agree that the speech may be hurtful. And it should be declaimed. But I don't like the whole PC thing with people getting their feelings hurt and saying they have a greivance from hate speech.

It's not just hate speech. Mere "hate speech" is if they would have been demonstrating in town square. If that were the case, then I'd agree with you. The Phelps crew intentionally tried to ruin this guy's (a private figure) funeral as much as they could. That goes further than mere "hate speech," and it's why the guy's family won an IIED action.

[Berzerker]

The Nazis have to apply for a permit and have to adhere to certain requirements of public order. Furthermore, I don't think they've done that in nearly 20 years.

Those are time manner and place regulations to accommodate both the marchers and locals given the increased congestion. The Nazis were not banned from marching or faced with a lawsuit because some locals were deeply offended.

Plenty, in fact one does not have to have inflicted actual physical harm in order to be guilty of criminal assault. Giving the victim the reasonable expectation of harm is sufficient. A group of screaming loonies leaning over your limo shouting obscenities as it enters the cemetary to me seems like a resonable expectation of harm.

Cite one...and now you're equating threats of violence with political protest. Where did these people say they were going to physically assault the funeral attendees? Not even the people bringing the lawsuit argued they felt threatened with violence.

IIRC they do more than stand around quietly at a respectful distance. From the descriptions I've heard they generally crowd around the entryways and scream their message at the top of their lungs.

They're already required to stand back away from the funeral. So shouting at someone driving by is grounds for a lawsuit?

Ah, you mean Roman Catholic Church. We Anglicans consider our sacraments as well as those of the Eastern rites and the Lutherans to be "Catholic" also and we do have a central authority, the Anglican Communion heade by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

whatever, the fact remains if your church doesn't preach against the gays then obviously "the Church" I'm referring to aint yours. But the Catholic Church does, so dont lecture me on criticizing your church when I didn't.

[TCO]

Henry the Eighth was supposed to be the Defender of the Faith. We need to invade England and reclaim it for the Catholics.

[TCO]

Ok... well, maybe church bells shouldn't be allowed to be rung or rifles shot off either. I mean if being at a funeral earns you silence from people on adjoining property, you can't let any sound escape either. or maybe, you can't speak at all in public if it might touch someone's ear drums. Do it on private property and sound insulate so none penetrates anywhere. Don't try to sneak in a whisper on the sidewalk either.

[Berzerker]

It's not just hate speech. Mere "hate speech" is if they would have been demonstrating in town square. If that were the case, then I'd agree with you. The Phelps crew intentionally tried to ruin this guy's (a private figure) funeral as much as they could. That goes further than mere "hate speech," and it's why the guy's family won an IIED action.

They won because the message really pisses people off, but it is political speech using a funeral to get media attention to spread the message... This "intent" is both irrelevant and BS, these people have a problem with government policy, not grieving parents.

From what I can see, no one answered my question:

If a state allows gay marriage and Catholics (or whatever) stand outside the church where gays are getting married and protest the ceremony, even calling gays an abomination to God, can gays sue?

[TCO]

According to these fruitcakes, yes, Berz.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Forget hate crimes. They should invoke obscenity statutes and the community standard rule. What Phelps and company do is at least as obscene as, say, bestiality porn, and there's no constitutional problem with banning that.

[TCO]

I don't agree with that either

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Cite one...and now you're equating threats of violence with political protest. Where did these people say they were going to physically assault the funeral attendees? Not even the people bringing the lawsuit argued they felt threatened with violence.

I have to cite case law now? I don't think so. The concept of verbal assault is an old one and has been part of Anglo-American common law since before the Revolution. I'd have to be a lawyer to have access to what you're asking for. Try: http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a...t_battery.html "acts in a manner to put another in fear of immediate harm."

They're already required to stand back away from the funeral. So shouting at someone driving by is grounds for a lawsuit?

Are they required to stand back? I thought they were merely required to not trespass, block the driveway or make physical contact. If a crowd of people stood beside the driveway of some place you were pulling into and they were shouting obscenities and gesticulating might you be a bit concerned that they might attack?

whatever, the fact remains if your church doesn't preach against the gays then obviously "the Church" I'm referring to aint yours. But the Catholic Church does, so dont lecture me on criticizing your church when I didn't.

Then kindly qualify your label. Surely you of all people realize that its wrong to accuse the innocent by making a sweeping generalization.