-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Funeral Protesters to pay $11 mil
- Thread starter AJB37
- Start date
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I guess this means I'm going to have think more seriously about the 1980 FLH that my wife and I are looking at:
I hate when people use the term "fundamentalist" to refer to anything crazy done by churches. A "fundamentalist" believes the bible is true, Christ is God the Father's only Son and part of the Trinity, is born of a virgin, died and rose again, is the only way to heaven... NOT that "God hates fags" or that one should thank God for dead soldiers, none of which fall anywhere under the "fundamentals" of Christianity.
As a "fundamentalist Christian," I can say that this Phelps guy is an idiot.
As a "fundamentalist Christian," I can say that this Phelps guy is an idiot.
I think the fact that these nutbags escape from their "protests" alive says a lot about American LEOs. It's one thing when they show up at soldiers' funerals - I think most of us take comfort in knowing we defend the rights of all Americans, even the looney tunes ones - but they showed up at the funerals of the Sago coal miners, too. Try hanging around a bunch of grieving West Virginia coal miners with a God Hates Fags sign and see how long you last.
That being said, there's only about 60 of these people, and most of them are in the "pastor"'s family and so brainwashed from birth. I wish there was some way to just ignore them, rather than giving them national media attention.
As for whether the money will be seen by the plaintiff - it's called seizure of assets. Can you think of an appellate judge in the country that would rule in favor of the First Church of Batshit Nuts? And you better believe they have everything they own, real estate, vehicles, bank accounts, in the church's name for tax reasons. Bam!
That being said, there's only about 60 of these people, and most of them are in the "pastor"'s family and so brainwashed from birth. I wish there was some way to just ignore them, rather than giving them national media attention.
As for whether the money will be seen by the plaintiff - it's called seizure of assets. Can you think of an appellate judge in the country that would rule in favor of the First Church of Batshit Nuts? And you better believe they have everything they own, real estate, vehicles, bank accounts, in the church's name for tax reasons. Bam!
While I hope these characters get taken to the cleaners too; I would hope that said appellate judge would rule according to the law, not the defendants, and that the prosecutor thus has all his/her ducks in a row. Assholes have rights in this country, too.
But as long as due process is followed, these folks should lose all of the life, liberty, and property we can legally get out of 'em. They've caused too much pain to too many families.
Probably depends on whether they did it as an official act of the church and whether or not they used church funds. Since their message is really a religious statement (with political implications), however, it is probably a gray area.
Cate
Pretty much invincible
There's politics, and then there's partisan politics. Churches can't engage in the latter, but they can support causes that are also supported by politics, as long as they don't endorse a candidate or party explicitly or tell their parishoners how to vote.
The controversy about this case seems to be over a freedom of speech thing - the defendants' lawyer's argument was that no matter how abhorrent, political and religious speech is protected by the 1st Amendment.
I'm definitely no lawyer, but this is a civil case, not a criminal case, and hasn't it been well-established that you can be held responsible in civil court for what you say and how you say it? For instance, you can't be arrested for saying so-and-so is a liar and a cheater, but people and publications are sued for libel routinely.
If these nutbags had stayed in their church and said what they said, no one would have any case for doing anything legally against them. But no reasonable person would expect that going to a funeral and screeching at the grieving family that God hates them and killed their son on purpose would not inflict emotional trauma, and it was done intentionally. And you CAN be sued for that.
I don't know - goofy-ass theology aside, I don't see how they can use a 1st Amendment defense and expect to get away with it.
I'm definitely no lawyer, but this is a civil case, not a criminal case, and hasn't it been well-established that you can be held responsible in civil court for what you say and how you say it? For instance, you can't be arrested for saying so-and-so is a liar and a cheater, but people and publications are sued for libel routinely.
If these nutbags had stayed in their church and said what they said, no one would have any case for doing anything legally against them. But no reasonable person would expect that going to a funeral and screeching at the grieving family that God hates them and killed their son on purpose would not inflict emotional trauma, and it was done intentionally. And you CAN be sued for that.
I don't know - goofy-ass theology aside, I don't see how they can use a 1st Amendment defense and expect to get away with it.
AJB37
Well-Known Member
Well the 1st Amendment was a bad defense in the first place. The case wasn't really about what they said, but rather where they said it. The family of the fallen soldier has the right to privately mourn in the same way that no person can enter another person's house a spew whatever nonsense they want because on your property you are entitled to privacy. This case seems to be extending that right to funerals as well.
I don't know if that made sense... I've been drinking... but yeah the free speech defense was a poor choice... in my amature opinion I would have gone with right to assembly... not that I would have wanted to defend these people in any way shape or form.
They were on 20/20 last night.....The Phelp's clan....they interviewed the 8 year old children and they were just as filled with hate as their parents....and they did not even know the defintion of the people they were supposed to hate.....why can't child services come and rescue these kids from the Jim Jones or David Koresh tragedy that is pending?
