High court rules for military funeral protesters

[marjar]

Decision upholds ruling throwing out $5-million judgment to father of dead Marine who sued church for picketing son's funeral

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount attention-getting, anti-gay protests outside military funerals.

The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for details.


www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41868004/ns/politics-more_politics/

[floridayankee]

Mar 2, 2011 10:34:58 GMT -5 @marjar said:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members....

...as they should.

Good to hear the Constitution is not totally dead yet.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Interesting.

What about burning the Gay Pride flag. I understand that is prohibited.

[Tennesseer]

Mar 2, 2011 10:48:18 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Interesting.

What about burning the Gay Pride flag. I understand that is prohibited.

Did you write the above with a straight (no pun intended) face?

[Tennesseer]

Mar 2, 2011 10:45:49 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Mar 2, 2011 10:34:58 GMT -5 @marjar said:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members....

...as they should.

Good to hear the Constitution is not totally dead yet.

I agree.

[floridayankee]

Mar 2, 2011 11:12:11 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Did you write the above with a straight (no pun intended) face?

No pun intended...sure Tenn. It was funny though.

[swamp]

Alito dissented. Hmmm, interesting. I'll have to look later as to why he would uphold the judgment.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Did you write the above with a straight (no pun intended) face?


Yes... 100% straight face, and not being funny either.

The Westboro church members are protesting against gay funerals(amongst others).

I defer to the attorneys here, but seems to me, the Supreme Court has effectively struck down all laws prohibiting hate speech/protests against gays.

If one can protest against funerals of someone who is gay, only because they are gay, and it is now protected speech, one should also be free to protest against gays who are living by burning the gay pride flag.

[billisonboard]

[glow=red,2,300]

WARNING

[/glow]

If you burn a gay pride flag
make sure you stay well back
while it is flaming.

[swamp]

I think hate crimes laws are unconstitutional, but nobody in charge asked me my opinion.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

I think hate crimes laws are unconstitutional, but nobody in charge asked me my opinion.

I am not in charge here but I am asking. As an attorney, what is your take on this.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...hate crimes laws stink... imo...

ETA: but I'm no lawyer... ;D

[Jake 48]

I think the whole problem is the lack of respect at a funeral. common decency, don't interfere with someone mourning

[swamp]

The constitution grants equal protection under the laws, and certain groups can only get special protections when they show "compelling governmental interest" for doing so.

Hate crimes elevate the penalities for commiting crimes against certain groups when the motivation for the crime is based on the victim belongin to one of the protected classes. Given that hate crimes are actually few and far between, I don't think the compelling governmental interest is there. Granted there were a few particularly heinous headliner crimes that was the impetus for these laws to be passed, I think the laws were, in general, badly drafted and knee jerk reactionary.

Don't even get me started on the dreck in the form of legislation that comes out of Albany................

[swamp]

Mar 2, 2011 11:28:18 GMT -5 Jake 48 said:

I think the whole problem is the lack of respect at a funeral. common decency, don't interfere with someone mourning

Human decency would dictate that you respect someone in mourning, but the constitution gives you a right to be an insensitive asshole.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Hey Swamp, you seem pretty agitated today....LOL

Thanks for your comments....

[handyman2]

I agree they can protest all they want but when they get in the face of people having a military or gay funeral then what happens to the rights to peaceful and unintterupted assembly of the funeral goers. there should be some law that protects that. Like protestors should be required to stay a 1/4 mile away.

[ugonow]

Today at 10:48am, Savoir Faire wrote: Interesting.

What about burning the Gay Pride flag. I understand that is prohibited.




Valid point,savoir. I did see this morning a court ruled in a kids favor that wore a be happy don't be gat t shirt to school on gay tolorance day.IMO,opinions can be expressed.

[Tennesseer]

Mar 2, 2011 11:14:30 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Mar 2, 2011 11:12:11 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Did you write the above with a straight (no pun intended) face?

No pun intended...sure Tenn. It was funny though.

Floridayankee-I was actually addressing Savoir Faire. But thanks for responding.

[Tennesseer]

Mar 2, 2011 11:20:24 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Did you write the above with a straight (no pun intended) face?


Yes... 100% straight face, and not being funny either.

The Westboro church members are protesting against gay funerals(amongst others).

I defer to the attorneys here, but seems to me, the Supreme Court has effectively struck down all laws prohibiting hate speech/protests against gays.

If one can protest against funerals of someone who is gay, only because they are gay, and it is now protected speech, one should also be free to protest against gays who are living by burning the gay pride flag.

Not sure where you are getting your information from Savoir Faire but seeing the gay pride flag is nothing but cloth nor let alone represents a country, it is not against the law to burn it. LOL!

[fairlycrazy23]

Also just a reminder they don't picket/protest funerals of gay soldiers, they picket/protest anybody they think will get them attention which is any dead soldier or like the child victim in AZ. They are the complete scum of the earth and not really a baptist church just a bunch of crazy family members.

They do follow the law by staying some distance away, but that is not out of any sense of decency they just don't want to get arrested.

[ugonow]

There sure was an out cry and police investigations when this one was burned,ten----www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/16/Rainbow_Flag_Burning_Investigation_Continues/

[swamp]

Mar 2, 2011 11:33:43 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Hey Swamp, you seem pretty agitated today....LOL

Thanks for your comments....

where have you been? I'm like this every day............

[973beachbum]

Mar 2, 2011 11:28:53 GMT -5 swamp said:

The constitution grants equal protection under the laws, and certain groups can only get special protections when they show "compelling governmental interest" for doing so.

Hate crimes elevate the penalities for commiting crimes against certain groups when the motivation for the crime is based on the victim belongin to one of the protected classes. Given that hate crimes are actually few and far between, I don't think the compelling governmental interest is there. Granted there were a few particularly heinous headliner crimes that was the impetus for these laws to be passed, I think the laws were, in general, badly drafted and knee jerk reactionary.

Don't even get me started on the dreck in the form of legislation that comes out of Albany................

Am I the only person who is upset that we have laws about what someone is thinking?

By defination all murder is an expression of hate.

[floridayankee]

Mar 2, 2011 13:18:38 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Mar 2, 2011 11:14:30 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

No pun intended...sure Tenn. It was funny though.

Floridayankee-I was actually addressing Savoir Faire. But thanks for responding.

I know that....it was still funny.

[fairlycrazy23]

Mar 2, 2011 14:31:39 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

Am I the only person who is upset that we have laws about what someone is thinking?

You are not the only one, I think hate crime laws are unconstitutional. But since we have them, maybe wealthy people should be a protected class, say if someone where dressed in a nice suit and stepped out of there BMW and got mugged , the robber probably picked that person he thought the victim was rich.
Why should that be any less than an individual dressed in clothing that displays 'gay pride slogans' and with gay pride bumber stickers getting mugged because they thought he was gay?

[Tennesseer]

Mar 2, 2011 13:29:21 GMT -5 ugonow said:

There sure was an out cry and police investigations when this one was burned,ten----www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/16/Rainbow_Flag_Burning_Investigation_Continues/

The burning of the flag itself was not the criminal act. The possible criminal act was where the burned object was left and placed-outside the entry of the LGBT Community Center in New York City in an attempt to intimidate the center's workers and visitors. It very well could have been treated as a possible hate crime.

The definition of a hate crime is as follows:
"A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin."

Regarding property, the charges could be criminal trespass, criminal mischief or arson. That the flag was taped by the front door to intimidate others [because of their sexual orientation] is where the criminal act comes into play.

If a bag of trash had been intentionally set on fire in the entry way of the NYC LGBT Community Center that too would have been investigated as a possible crime [criminal trespass, criminal mischief or arson] and maybe even classified as hate crime too depending upon the findings of any investigation.

In the case of the NYC LGBT Community Center, your link states "the center’s surveillance cameras captured an image of the perpetrator" so it clearly was intentional.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

The definition of a hate crime is as follows:
"A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin."

Seems to me the deceased soldier was gay. That fits the definition of a hate crime.
The WBC's intent was to foist hate and intimidation on the mourning and grieving family.
Nothing is more humorous then the left wing mincing words.

[floridayankee]

Mar 2, 2011 14:31:39 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

Am I the only person who is upset that we have laws about what someone is thinking?

What law would that be....and wouldn't it be a bit hard to prove?

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

What law would that be....and wouldn't it be a bit hard to prove?

Workplace harrassment laws could be an example of this.