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

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
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."

How could the funeral-goers have construed any threat of harm, let alone immediate harm? Did the loonies actually say they were going to beat someone with their signs, or did they just say they were all going to hell?

[Berzerker]

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/...lt_battery.html "acts in a manner to put another in fear of immediate harm."

Well, I'd like to see the precedent for this lawsuit...you can do as you please obviously. The plaintiffs didn't sue because of fear of immediate harm, nor were these people prosecuted for such. Your link is about assaults/battery and threats thereof, not some people with a well known political agenda standing around with signs shouting down with gays and the government that tolerates them. You're fabricating a reason for the lawsuit not even the plaintiffs tried to argue.

Are they required to stand back? I thought they were merely required to not trespass, block the driveway or make physical contact.

That too, and use of crosswalks instead of jaywalking

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?

Not a reasonable expectation of attack. Therein lies the rub - if holding a sign and shouting something about the government and gays makes me believe I'm about to be attacked as I drive by, my fear is irrational. Besides, these people weren't charged with threatening violence and they are well known political protesters, not people who've repeatedly assaulted funeral attendees.

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

I did qualify it, the bolded part qualifies which Church. And your Anglican Church stuff aside, "the Church" is a common reference to the Catholic Church so that was two qualifiers.

The gays can sue the Church for calling them an abomination to God

The Church calls gays an abomination to God. You say your church doesn't do that and took offense because I referred specifically to "the Church" that does call gays an abomination to God.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Berzerker
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.

Intentionally targeting the grieving parents was an impotant strategic consideration for Phelps & co. If it wasn't, then why was it so crucial to hold their rally at the cemetary? The reason is that it is so repugnant and so intentionally harmful that it would draw more media attention. Just holding a rally wasn't enough. They wanted it to be as degarding and hateful to the family as possible, so it could be a bigger news story. That strategic consideration would satisfy the intent element. That's why they lost the suit.

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?

Depends on the specific factual circumstances. If they're right near the church with hateful signs making a commotion loud enough to disrupt the ceremonies, and the disruption of the ceremonies leads to severe emotional distress, then they'd have a colorable action, IMO. If they picket the church the day before the ceremony or the day after, or if they picket at reasonable distance from the church during the ceremony (far enough away that they don't disrupt or interact with the wedding), then the gay couple would have no claim.

You can call me a "fruitcake" all you like. I think that extremist positions actually hurt the populace's willingness to defend our civil liberties. No one is censoring these people in any meaningful way. They're free to spread their message. They have websites, they can picket in parks, town squares, etc. Taking the position that preventing these people from deliberately disrupting other's most emotional of moments is a grave Constitutional injustice threatening our liberties is absurd to me.

Even worse, that position makes people less sensitive to actual Constitutional injustices. As it stands, non-libertarians roll their eyes when they see such hyperbole. Most of us believe there is a distinction between spreading your beliefs and intentionally harrassing particular, vulnerable private citizens. If civil libertarians cry wolf enough about stuff like this, maybe the average person would roll their eyes when the civil libertarian cries injustice over and actual injustice (like Phelps getting losing a suit for IIED after a rally in town square because a passerby was offended. That would be a real injustice.)

[Berzerker]

Hey Doc, according to this link Episcopalian and Anglican are est (2004) at just under 5 million people while Catholics number over 70 million. Does that help?

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Hey Doc, according to this link Episcopalian and Anglican are est (2004) at just under 5 million people while Catholics number over 70 million. Does that help?

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html

So what? You call yourself a libertarian, right? I know that in the past you've argued that all members of a group should not be punished for the acts of some of the group. If some guy or group of guys goes out and commits some egregious act in the name of the libertarian cause shall I pen the crime on all libertarians? Certain Christian denominations persecute gays and immediately it becomes common knowledge that all Christians persecute gays. When a Christian group endures considerable persecution because it refuses to participate in this persecution its example is simply ignored. It's commonly understood that when you speak of "the Church" you're speaking about Christians in general. I might also point out that while there may be 70 million Catholics in the US there are at least twice that number of Protestants, so in the US it would not be reasonable to expect someone to interpret a reference to "the Church" as meaning specifically the Roman Catholic Church. For the sake of clarity then when you're talikg about the Roman Catholic Chuirch please call them Roman Catholics.

[Berzerker]

Intentionally targeting the grieving parents was an impotant strategic consideration for Phelps & co. If it wasn't, then why was it so crucial to hold their rally at the cemetary?

They were picketing the funeral, not the grieving parents. And why? Because the funeral is related to their message, that dying soldiers are the price we (the USA) pay for tolerating gays. Did they picket the parent's home?

Depends on the specific factual circumstances. If they're right near the church with hateful signs making a commotion loud enough to disrupt the ceremonies, and the disruption of the ceremonies leads to severe emotional distress, then they'd have a colorable action, IMO.

There is only 1 "fact" to consider, not your list of assumptions - the wedding party goes to and leaves the church and sees and hears gays are an abomination to God from the protesters. That is analogous to the Phelps' case...

If they picket the church the day before the ceremony or the day after, or if they picket at reasonable distance from the church during the ceremony (far enough away that they don't disrupt or interact with the wedding), then the gay couple would have no claim.

Then the plaintiffs in this case have no claim.

You can call me a "fruitcake" all you like.

I didn't call you a fruitcake

I think that extremist positions actually hurt the populace's willingness to defend our civil liberties.

Freedom of religion and speech are extreme positions, they certainly were 220 years ago.

No one is censoring these people in any meaningful way.

You get to decide what is meaningful? No thanks

They're free to spread their message. They have websites, they can picket in parks, town squares, etc. Taking the position that preventing these people from deliberately disrupting other's most emotional of moments is a grave Constitutional injustice threatening our liberties is absurd to me.

Their presence and message did not disrupt the funeral any more than Catholics standing outside a church protesting gay weddings. I haven't seen any evidence of a disruption of the funeral, but maybe this will allow people like Ann Coulter to sue left wingers who disrupt her appearances on campus.

Even worse, that position makes people less sensitive to actual Constitutional injustices. As it stands, non-libertarians roll their eyes when they see such hyperbole. Most of us believe there is a distinction between spreading your beliefs and intentionally harrassing particular, vulnerable private citizens. If civil libertarians cry wolf enough about stuff like this, maybe the average person would roll their eyes when the civil libertarian cries injustice over and actual injustice (like Phelps getting sued for IIED after a rally in town square because a passerby was offended. That would be a real injustice.)

You mean if libertarians keep quiet while people are sued for offensive political messages, you'll stand up and defend offensive political messages from lawsuits? Blaming people who dont agree with this BS for your apathy or actual support of this attack on freedom of religion and speech is ridiculous. The Boy who Cried Wolf argument is illogical, there was no wolf all those times up until the wolf showed up. This is an attack on civil liberties, you just dont care because you hate the message.

[Berzerker]

So what? You call yourself a libertarian, right? I know that in the past you've argued that all members of a group should not be punished for the acts of some of the group. If some guy or group of guys goes out and commits some egregious act in the name of the libertarian cause shall I pen the crime on all libertarians? Certain Christian denominations persecute gays and immediately it becomes common knowledge that all Christians persecute gays. When a Christian group endures considerable persecution because it refuses to participate in this persecution its example is simply ignored. It's commonly understood that when you speak of "the Church" you're speaking about Christians in general. I might also point out that while there may be 70 million Catholics in the US there are at least twice that number of Protestants, so in the US it would not be reasonable to expect someone to interpret a reference to "the Church" as meaning specifically the Roman Catholic Church. For the sake of clarity then when you're talikg about the Roman Catholic Chuirch please call them Roman Catholics.

Oh nonsense, "the Church" does not refer to all Christians, it refers to the Catholic Church. I even added "the Church for calling them an abomination to God" so obviously I'm referring to the Church that calls gays an abomination to God. You just ignored that qualifier, admit it... I'm not interested in your spin... And I already said "the Church" refers to the Catholic Church because it has a central authority and a central Church, Protestants dont have a central Church or authority and no one would be dumb enough to think 'the Church" refers to them.

And I capitalized "the Church", that usually refers to the Catholic Church because it has a central Church/authority whereas most other churches in the US are quasi-independent.

Read my posts before making points I already addressed.

[LotC]

Only in America.

[Berzerker]

This is what I said

The gays can sue the Church for calling them an abomination to God

And you interpreted that to mean the Anglican Church that does not call gays an abomination to God? Then you interpreted it to mean all Christians? Do all Christians call gays an abomination to God? Jesus didn't even do that. There's 2 qualifiers in my statement, Doc, you ignored one and are trying to spin the other.

Just stop with the BS

[Alinestra Covelia]

I only just realized that South Park may have had a theological point by making their "Satan" gay.

I've been watching that show for about 4 years now, so this is a bit of a late realization.

[Berzerker]

what was the theological point? I'm still trying to figure out Imaginationland

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker


And I already said "the Church" refers to the Catholic Church because it has a central authority and a central Church, Protestants dont have a central Church or authority and no one would be dumb enough to think 'the Church" refers to them.

You're not reading my posts. The Anglican Communion does indeed have a central Church and a central authority.

[Dr Strangelove]

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

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

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Berzerker
They were picketing the funeral, not the grieving parents. And why? Because the funeral is related to their message, that dying soldiers are the price we (the USA) pay for tolerating gays. Did they picket the parent's home?

.....

There is only 1 "fact" to consider, not your list of assumptions - the wedding party goes to and leaves the church and sees and hears gays are an abomination to God from the protesters. That is analogous to the Phelps' case...

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.

My answer to your hypo stays the same. It's a tricky situation, and it depends on the facts. The more the facts show an intent to disrupt the private ceremony, the less likely it would be protected religious speech.

The same goes for the Phelps' case. The more the facts show that there harrasment and disruption of the private event was a goal, the less apt I am to see the activity as protected speech.

(As an aside, I bet that Phelps would picket the parents' houses if he thought he could get away with it. He just knows that he couldn't get away with it)

Then the plaintiffs in this case have no claim.

It's possible that you're right on this. As much as you hate it, it comes down to the facts to me. 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.

I didn't call you a fruitcake

No, you didn't. TCO did. I'm sorry.

Freedom of religion and speech are extreme positions, they certainly were 220 years ago.

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.

You get to decide what is meaningful? No thanks

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.

Their presence and message did not disrupt the funeral any more than Catholics standing outside a church protesting gay weddings.

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

but maybe this will allow people like Ann Coulter to sue left wingers who disrupt her appearances on campus.

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.

You mean if libertarians keep quiet while people are sued for offensive political messages, you'll stand up and defend offensive political messages from lawsuits? Blaming people who dont agree with this BS for your apathy or actual support of this attack on freedom of religion and speech is ridiculous. The Boy who Cried Wolf argument is illogical, there was no wolf all those times up until the wolf showed up. This is an attack on civil liberties, you just dont care because you hate the message.

You think I'm being apathetic or in favor of political censorship. I think you're being hyperbolic and counterproductive and, unless I'm completely wrong on the facts of this case, that view isn't going to change. We're just not going to agree on this.

If I am wrong, though, if the Phelps family really didn't disrupt the funeral in any way, then they are getting railroaded here. The facts matter.

[Berzerker]

You're not reading my posts. The Anglican Communion does indeed have a central Church and a central authority.

Blah blah blah, and a membership of what? You wanna compare that with the Catholic Church to claim any reasonable person would see a reference to "the Church" as a reference to the Anglicans and not the Catholic Church? Just go away, you accused me of making a generalization without qualifiers and I've already pointed out I had 2 qualifiers which you wont even acknowledge. Does your church call gays an abomination? You say no, fine. So why are you arguing that "the Church that calls gays an abomination" is a reference to your church?