Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/ap/national/main3439663.shtml

"BALTIMORE, United States (AFP) - - A court on Wednesday ordered an evangelical church to pay 11 million dollars in damages to the father of a US Marine killed in Iraq for causing distress by picketing his son's funeral claiming the war is a punishment for tolerating gays.

The jury ruled that members of the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church caused mental suffering to Albert Snyder, who says he became depressed after they paraded outside the funeral of his 20-year-old son Matthew in 2006.

They waved signs reading "Thank God for dead soldiers," and "*** troops."

A video of the protests was played in court during the week-long trial of church members Fred Phelps, who founded the church in 1955, and two of his daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebekah Phelps-Davis.

Their lawyer Jonathan Katz said the funeral was a public event and their actions were protected by the constitutional rights to free speech and religious expression.

But the jury decided Wednesday the church members should pay 2.9 million dollars in compensation and a further eight million in punitive damages for "mental pain and suffering" caused to Snyder, and for invading his privacy.

The church says the United States is losing troops because it tolerates gays, including in the military -- hence the many protests it has held at military funerals such as Snyder's. His sexuality was not an issue at the trial.

It claims to have carried out similar pickets more than 30,000 times, but the Baltimore case was the first one involving a funeral protest to go to trial."

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

"BALTIMORE, United States (AFP) - - A court on Wednesday ordered an evangelical church to pay 11 million dollars in damages to the father of a US Marine killed in Iraq for causing distress by picketing his son's funeral claiming the war is a punishment for tolerating gays.

The jury ruled that members of the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church caused mental suffering to Albert Snyder, who says he became depressed after they paraded outside the funeral of his 20-year-old son Matthew in 2006.

They waved signs reading "Thank God for dead soldiers," and "*** troops."

A video of the protests was played in court during the week-long trial of church members Fred Phelps, who founded the church in 1955, and two of his daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebekah Phelps-Davis.

Their lawyer Jonathan Katz said the funeral was a public event and their actions were protected by the constitutional rights to free speech and religious expression.

But the jury decided Wednesday the church members should pay 2.9 million dollars in compensation and a further eight million in punitive damages for "mental pain and suffering" caused to Snyder, and for invading his privacy.

The church says the United States is losing troops because it tolerates gays, including in the military -- hence the many protests it has held at military funerals such as Snyder's. His sexuality was not an issue at the trial.

It claims to have carried out similar pickets more than 30,000 times, but the Baltimore case was the first one involving a funeral protest to go to trial."

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

It's not right, the 11 million dollars... it's the Phelps though, they're pieces of shit, so "HaHa".

I do find it baffling, that they call the soldiers "f@gs", of all things.

Its the American legal system being able to claim "mental anguish" as damages. Since it is a civil case, and because of them "showing harm" (lol from a Canadian perspective) its not a freedom of protest/speech issue...

I really don't agree with the verdict, but I also don't mind seeing negative things happen to these people. When they die we should all make a pilgrimage to hold a concert or rave or whatever during the proceedings.

I heard today that the Church that is doing the protests where given a change, before the law suit was filed, to apologize and promise to stop the protests. Therefore, I think they deserve what they got.

They can afford those sorts of fines? WTF>!>!!!?!?!

Originally posted by chithappens
They can afford those sorts of fines? WTF>!>!!!?!?!

When someone adopts an extremist mentality that is so far outside of societal norms...they are usually willing to devote all of their resources to their cause. It becomes a pride issue for them when something comes up that they don't agree with. (They already committed to the faith so when something comes up that shows them that they are not doing things morally right or otherwise, they refuse to change their ways/religion because of their pride.)

This type of mentality is the same mentality that causes terrorist attacks...however, I would say that it is far more acceptable to be a suicide bomber if you are Muslim than it is if you are a christian protesting at funerals of soldiers. I don't know of any Christian faith that condones their actions. Does that make them worse than extreme Jihadists?

Trust me, there are plenty of Christians who agree with what they did but would not do it themselves

Originally posted by chithappens
Trust me, there are plenty of Christians who agree with what they did but would not do it themselves

Oh really...

I thnk Shirley Phelps Roper needs to be butt raped droolio....by SATAN droolio

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh really...

Yeah, what this guy said. I haven't seen ANY groups that agree with what they are doing...I live in Oklahoma...the belt buckle of the bible belt...there are over 500 Christian churches in the OKC area alone.

http://www.usachurch.com/oklahoma/oklahoma_city/churchresults49.htm

It is not like I am giving a close minded opinion...I just simply haven't found one Christian person who agrees with what they are doing.

I doubt you'll find many people, Christian or not, agree with what they're saying.

How many gay Christians do you know that regularly go to church in the Bible Belt?

Originally posted by chithappens
How many gay Christians do you know that regularly go to church in the Bible Belt?


Ted Haggard

1

Originally posted by chithappens
How many gay Christians do you know that regularly go to church in the Bible Belt?

What does that have to do with anything... there's no way to prove that 'this certain number' of gay Christians go to church, or that there are 'this certain number' of gay Christians to begin with.

Originally posted by chithappens
How many gay Christians do you know that regularly go to church in the Bible Belt?

Half of the Male homosexuals I know were active Christians...go figure. All but one lesbian I know doesn't go to church. go figure.

Originally posted by Robtard
What does that have to do with anything... there's no way to prove that 'this certain number' of gay Christians go to church, or that there are 'this certain number' of gay Christians to begin with.

There is no way to proof it but not many openly gay people go to church. Now I say this having lived in Los Angeles, Chicago, Memphis, and Knoxville.

Maybe just not in those places...

Just because a person is Gay does not mean he or she cannot be Christian, and vise versa.

I did not say that. I'm talking about what the majority thinks

Good! I have had it with the GHF cult. They oughta pay for the pain and sufferings that families are going through at this terrible moment.

Originally posted by JacopeX
Good! I have had it with the GHF cult. They oughta pay for the pain and sufferings that families are going through at this terrible moment.


GHF cult ? Oh..u mean "God hates f*gs"


Yeah, I agree. They are creating a bigger rift, and harassing families in pain.

Read about this in the papers earlier. Can't believe they are still throwing bullshit. They were dead to me though. (Assasination anyone?)

Originally posted by JacopeX


Read about this in the papers earlier. Can't believe they are still throwing bullshit. They were dead to me though. (Assasination anyone?)


It's people like them who ruin it for other Christians.

Extremism is what just ruins it for any other religion. Just look at the war in Iraq between two types of religions.

True

why is it that only soldiers are entitled legally to a dignified funeral...just food for thought

Originally posted by Schecter
why is it that only soldiers are entitled legally to a dignified funeral...just food for thought

All funerals should be dignified, even the most hated criminals.

Originally posted by Robtard
I doubt you'll find many people, Christian or not, agree with what they're saying.

I think you'll find a great number of Christians that agree with what they're saying. I think you meant to say "what they're doing". What they're doing is out of line to most civilized people, but what they're saying...that's another matter.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Half of the Male homosexuals I know were active Christians...go figure. All but one lesbian I know doesn't go to church. go figure.

Just curious, how many homosexuals do you know? Because your ratios strike me as very,very high. I'm not calling you a liar, by any means. But I know a lot of homosexuals and out off the whole lot of them, only a handfull go to church.

Originally posted by JacopeX
Good! I have had it with the GHF cult. They oughta pay for the pain and sufferings that families are going through at this terrible moment.

That's crap. They didn't kill the kid. If you wanna sue someone over the "pain and suffering" you'd have to file suit against the current administration. Westboro Baptist Church is guilty of not taking their feelings into consideration, but they certainly didn't start the pain and suffering.

Originally posted by Schecter
why is it that only soldiers are entitled legally to a dignified funeral...just food for thought

Obviously, they shouldn't be the only ones.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All funerals should be dignified, even the most hated criminals. No.

They didn't live their life with dignity. They shouldn't be able to die with any either.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by InnerRise
No.

They didn't live their life with dignity. They shouldn't be able to die with any either.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

I disagree...

Originally posted by Devil King
I think you'll find a great number of Christians that agree with what they're saying. I think you meant to say "what they're doing". What they're doing is out of line to most civilized people, but what they're saying...that's another matter.

A true Christian would know that God doesn't "hate"... if someone thinks God is capable of hate, then they're not following the teachings of Christ. i.e. not a Christian.

But yes, I meant more so "what they're doing", than saying. Though I doubt many would-be Christians would agree with all their sayings, as "f@gs" aren't the only people in the Phelps' target sight.

Originally posted by Robtard
A true Christian would know that God doesn't "hate"...

Well, then that illustrates how few "true" Christians there are, doesn't it.

Originally posted by InnerRise
No.

They didn't live their life with dignity. They shouldn't be able to die with any either.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....



When you insult or attack a person, you do not only hurt them. You hurt the people they love.


If you see it right to disrespect the funeral of a criminal, than you must also see it right to disrespect thier family members and children as well.

Originally posted by Devil King
Well, then that illustrates how few "true" Christians there are, doesn't it.

No argument there.

Christian by name and Christian in application are two different things. I was only going by name but even in application they do not disagree with their opinion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All funerals should be dignified, even the most hated criminals.

I'd agree with that.

I saw an Keith Allen expose on these characters.
They are insane, but not as insane as the fact that those people are given so much power.

Ah............................ organised religion...............

Originally posted by chithappens
Christian by name and Christian in application are two different things. I was only going by name but even in application they do not disagree with their opinion.

By application, a Christian wouldn't think/believe God "hates", Jesus taught this. If you're a Christian, then you're a follower of Jesus and his teachings, to go against those teachings, would render your functional Christian status null and void.

That's like saying I'm a pilot, but I don't have a pilot's license, nor am I capable of flying a plane.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
When you insult or attack a person, you do not only hurt them. You hurt the people they love.


If you see it right to disrespect the funeral of a criminal, than you must also see it right to disrespect thier family members and children as well. If I had said anything that you just said then you might have something there.

Being that I did not.........it's all irrelevant...whether it's true or not.

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by InnerRise
If I had said anything that you just said then you might have something there.

Being that I did not.........it's all irrelevant...whether it's true or not.

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

*Reads post with a whinny voice*

Originally posted by Robtard
By application, a Christian wouldn't think/believe God "hates", Jesus taught this. If you're a Christian, then you're a follower of Jesus and his teachings, to go against those teachings, would render your functional Christian status null and void.

That's like saying I'm a pilot, but I don't have a pilot's license, nor am I capable of flying a plane.

According to them, hate is different from a sort of unacceptable beahvior. Beliving what they think is wrong does not mean you hate them

Originally posted by InnerRise
No.

They didn't live their life with dignity. They shouldn't be able to die with any either.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Yeah but its the bit AFTER the death we are discussing...

Besides, there have been undignified non-criminals and some dignified criminals too.

LMAO

Originally posted by chithappens
According to them, hate is different from a sort of unacceptable beahvior. Beliving what they think is wrong does not mean you hate them

Are you talking about Christians in general or just the Phelps? You lost me, chief.

I hate them. But, I don't have a religion or a deity to hide behind, so I have to be honest and say it's me that hates them. I feel like that makes me more of a man. I take responsability for my feelings, unlike most "Krischeens" who mask their irrationality with a blind devotion to Santa God.

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you talking about Christians in general or just the Phelps? You lost me, chief.

Christians. sorry bout that

Originally posted by chithappens
Christians. sorry bout that

Point stands, a true Christian wouldn't believe "God hates...".

Originally posted by chithappens
According to them, hate is different from a sort of unacceptable beahvior. Beliving what they think is wrong does not mean you hate them

Originally posted by chithappens


I not talking about Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong/sinful, that's fine; they can think what they like.

I am talking about "Christians" (like the Phelps) who are Christian in name only, because they believe God is capable of hate, which is something Jesus didn't teach, "hate".

Good, maybe this will shut them up for a while.

Really, I'd rather them die, but whatever.

o ok. well we agree then LOL. Yeah they on some other shit

Originally posted by BackFire
Good, maybe this will shut them up for a while.

Really, I'd rather them die, but whatever.

By AIDS, or?

Originally posted by Devil King
Just curious, how many homosexuals do you know? Because your ratios strike me as very,very high. I'm not calling you a liar, by any means. But I know a lot of homosexuals and out off the whole lot of them, only a handfull go to church.

Hundreds. There are quite a few gays in Tulsa. You can find them a lot in call centers...which is where I worked the last 5 years.

Originally posted by Robtard
By AIDS, or?

Not picky.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
*Reads post with a whinny voice* Let's keep this thread on topic.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by dadudemon
Hundreds. There are quite a few gays in Tulsa. You can find them a lot in call centers...which is where I worked the last 5 years.

Haha, you fool... you've made a fatal error; your ruse is up! Everyone knows gays work retail.

If you go to Fire Island, about 99.999999% of them are Gay. I love Fire Island

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
If you go to Fire Island, about 99.999999% of them are Gay. I love Fire Island


So you are saying that on Fire Island....people are flamers?

I heard about this in my GSA club today.

Stupid Phelps. Just a bunch of incest-ridden losers brainwashing their children.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Hundreds.

Come on, man.

Originally posted by InnerRise
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/ap/national/main3439663.shtml

"BALTIMORE, United States (AFP) - - A court on Wednesday ordered an evangelical church to pay 11 million dollars in damages to the father of a US Marine killed in Iraq for causing distress by picketing his son's funeral claiming the war is a punishment for tolerating gays.

The jury ruled that members of the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church caused mental suffering to Albert Snyder, who says he became depressed after they paraded outside the funeral of his 20-year-old son Matthew in 2006.

They waved signs reading "Thank God for dead soldiers," and "*** troops."

A video of the protests was played in court during the week-long trial of church members Fred Phelps, who founded the church in 1955, and two of his daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebekah Phelps-Davis.

Their lawyer Jonathan Katz said the funeral was a public event and their actions were protected by the constitutional rights to free speech and religious expression.

But the jury decided Wednesday the church members should pay 2.9 million dollars in compensation and a further eight million in punitive damages for "mental pain and suffering" caused to Snyder, and for invading his privacy.

The church says the United States is losing troops because it tolerates gays, including in the military -- hence the many protests it has held at military funerals such as Snyder's. His sexuality was not an issue at the trial.

It claims to have carried out similar pickets more than 30,000 times, but the Baltimore case was the first one involving a funeral protest to go to trial."

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

"BALTIMORE, United States (AFP) - - A court on Wednesday ordered an evangelical church to pay 11 million dollars in damages to the father of a US Marine killed in Iraq for causing distress by picketing his son's funeral claiming the war is a punishment for tolerating gays.

The jury ruled that members of the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church caused mental suffering to Albert Snyder, who says he became depressed after they paraded outside the funeral of his 20-year-old son Matthew in 2006.

They waved signs reading "Thank God for dead soldiers," and "*** troops."

A video of the protests was played in court during the week-long trial of church members Fred Phelps, who founded the church in 1955, and two of his daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebekah Phelps-Davis.

Their lawyer Jonathan Katz said the funeral was a public event and their actions were protected by the constitutional rights to free speech and religious expression.

But the jury decided Wednesday the church members should pay 2.9 million dollars in compensation and a further eight million in punitive damages for "mental pain and suffering" caused to Snyder, and for invading his privacy.

The church says the United States is losing troops because it tolerates gays, including in the military -- hence the many protests it has held at military funerals such as Snyder's. His sexuality was not an issue at the trial.

It claims to have carried out similar pickets more than 30,000 times, but the Baltimore case was the first one involving a funeral protest to go to trial."

Anata wa wakarimasu ka..... They deserved it IMO. I dislike how people can be so intolerant.

People should not be allowed to sue for mental anguish

financial compensation must be for demonstrable losses

Originally posted by inimalist
People should not be allowed to sue for mental anguish

financial compensation must be for demonstrable losses Don't trample on peoples rights.

Originally posted by inimalist
People should not be allowed to sue for mental anguish

financial compensation must be for demonstrable losses

I cordially disagree. Especially when concerning such a grave matter as this.

That being said, however, I do believe the verdict of eleven million dollars to be ridiculous and rather....overtly cruel.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Don't trample on peoples rights.

If no demonstrable harm is being done, people should have the right to express themselves in any way

Originally posted by Melcórë
I cordially disagree. Especially when concerning such a grave matter as this.

That being said, however, I do believe the verdict of eleven million dollars to be ridiculous and rather....overtly cruel.

I personally, as a human being, think the Phelps are the worst of the lowest form of scum.

I don't necessarily even agree that there is no demonstrable harm in the case, I just think the verdict is for an invalid justification.

And ya, 11 million.... What was the last lawsuit a neonazi demonstration got hit with... (I actually don't know)

I say they want to ruin someone's funeral....they should have to pay for it..........figuratively and literally.

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by inimalist
If no demonstrable harm is being done, people should have the right to express themselves in any way Then it will be desided by law. Just because you don't like the effects of one, whether ill used or not, it still would take away the rights of others to say so. To complain about that right will effect others.

Originally posted by Devil King
Come on, man.

LMAO, I don't know twenty people that I keep up with regularly but he knows huundreds of homosexuals. Right, left?

Originally posted by InnerRise
I say they want to ruin someone's funeral....they should have to pay for it..........figuratively and literally.

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Freedom of speech covers "ruining someone's day".

It doesn't make what they are doing right, the government or the court system have no business getting involved in peoples' enjoyment of their outings.


Originally posted by debbiejo
Then it will be desided by law. Just because you don't like the effects of one, whether ill used or not, it still would take away the rights of others to say so. To complain about that right will effect others.

I don't understand what you are saying... I am not saying people can't complain, in fact I am for very loud and boisterious complaining.

I am saying that for a court, and thus the government, to have the right to take away an individual's hard earned money in penance, they must be able to show that it is in equal amount to the damage being done. If no damage can be shown, no penance can be afflicted.

Originally posted by inimalist


I am saying that for a court, and thus the government, to have the right to take away an individual's hard earned money in penance, they must be able to show that it is in equal amount to the damage being done. If no damage can be shown, no penance can be afflicted.

I'm sorry, if you can afford an $11 million fine, that was not hard earned money

Originally posted by chithappens
I'm sorry, if you can afford an $11 million fine, that was not hard earned money

It came from somewhere...

yeah the sky and manifest destiny

I don't understand what you are saying... I am not saying people can't complain, in fact I am for very loud and boisterous complaining.

In stating this, is taking rights away from the people. It doesn't matter what side you are on or not. If you feel differently then it will be decided, but to do away with this, is to do away with all our rights in this respect.

Originally posted by debbiejo
In stating this, is taking rights away from the people. It doesn't matter what side you are on or not. If you feel differently then it will be decided, but to do away with this, is to do away with all our rights.

lol, wow, we will just have to agree to disagree

Originally posted by chithappens
yeah the sky and manifest destiny

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, wow, we will just have to agree to disagree LOL, you would want YOUR rights in what ever it is to be void an null?

Originally posted by debbiejo
LOL, you would want YOUR rights in what ever it is to be void an null?

I don't think the right to sue for indemonstrable compensation exists

Originally posted by inimalist
Freedom of speech covers "ruining someone's day". So does that $11 Million dollar fine.

yes

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by InnerRise
So does that $11 Million dollar fine.

yes

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

what does the $11 million fine also do?

You said for

Originally posted by inimalist
what does the $11 million fine also do?

Hopefully it'll bankrupt those damn fanatics....

I'm sure that if you look at what I quoted you'll figure it out.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by InnerRise
I'm sure that if you look at what I quoted you'll figure it out.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

oh, wit, right

The one teaching of Christianity I have never seen proponents of said religion live by:
"Audistis quia dictum est, 'Diliges proximum tuum et odio habebis inimicum tuum.' Ego autem dico uobis, 'Diligite inimicos uestros, benefacite his qui oderunt uos, et orate pro persequentibus et calumniantibus uos.'"

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, wit, right I prefer to call it common sense.

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by debbiejo
You said for

mental anguish is indemonstrable

If someone has hospital bills, fine, misses work, sure. I am sure you could even twist my arm on this one pretty far, however, just plain old "mental anguish" is too ambiguous.

The government should only be allowed to take money away from people in an amount that can be rationally demonstrated by harm caused by the actions or neglect of an individual. Courts shouldn't just be allowed to make up numerical punishments for people, especially as this one was based on the celebrity status of the Phelps.

Originally posted by InnerRise
I prefer to call it common sense.

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

funny, my word would be fascism

Originally posted by inimalist
funny, my word would be fascism

Moderate-Fascism (is there such a thing?) could be a good thing for Western society....

False.

I'm not taling about court rulings. I'm talking about this certain right to collect under the law. To limit what we like would be great and wonderful, but what if would inhibit others under the law? What about people really distressed? And for different reasons. Are we to take away their rights also because of an obscure point?

Originally posted by inimalist
funny, my word would be fascism So you DO understand my post then?

Good. Let's not dance this dance again then shall we not. Kthxbai.

wave

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by Devil King
Come on, man.

I know I know...unbelievable..right? It is absolutely true. I PM'd you the details because it is off topic and a bit personal.

mental anguish i think is fair in a lot of such cases. imagine if a million christians arracnge an all out protest at another funeral. and only 2 or three people are attending the funeral. perhaps the actual mental anguish wont be greater than a few hundred people saying the same thing around them. but that isnt the problem. the ones who did it and expressed their spite shoud be made to pay for it. if there are 10 million the penalty should be equally higher.

Originally posted by Devil King
Santa God. Did this crack anyone else up for have I just not been in the GDF for a while?

Originally posted by inimalist
Freedom of speech covers "ruining someone's day". If I were the plaintiff, I would sue for slander, not mental anguish. God doesn't actually hate f@gs, as was proven by Robtard et al, so they have a much better case there, I think

I don't believe in suing for intangible reasons for exactly that reason: they're intangible and immeasurable. You can't put a monetary value on mental anguish.

When the Phelps die, I think I'll probably travel to the states, just to piss of their graves.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I know I know...unbelievable..right? It is absolutely true. I PM'd you the details because it is off topic and a bit personal.

You know "hundreds" of gay men and it's a bit personal... hmmm.

inimalist, i kinda agree with what you're saying. while i get a certain amount of pleasure from the news its still troubling since its a valid slippery slope argument.

i think one solution would be to pass a law protecting the dignity of a funeral (and weddings as well if gay marriage is ever allowed). in fact, i feel if phelps wants to protest against gays and the war and america in general, its his right to, and he has plenty of options for where to spew his excrement besides a funeral.

there has to be a way to resolve this without trampling on our rights, though i doubt it will ever be found without earmarks galore.

:edit: perhaps the exception being that carrying on in front of a family in mourning at a funeral cerimony (a volitale situation to begin with) is a direct endagerment to everyone, like crying "fire" in a crowded theater....i dont know

Originally posted by Schecter

i think one solution would be to pass a law protecting the dignity of a funeral

Another is to kill all Phelps.

Just ... throwing it out there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Another to kill all Phelps.

Just ... throwing it out there.

oh please. some other crackpot will just take his place.

Originally posted by Schecter
oh please. some other crackpot will just take his place. Of course.

But the Phelps would dead.

Not sure how you can't see that

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course.

But the Phelps would dead.

Not sure how you can't see that

are you suggesting a state ordered execution?

Originally posted by Schecter
are you suggesting a state ordered execution?

Or a good old mob lynching...you know...whatever gets the job done.

im surprised it hasnt happened yet...or that nobody at least tuned him up.

Originally posted by Schecter
are you suggesting a state ordered execution?

I'm not for killing people just because they're assholes, but this group believes that homosexuality in of itself is sending everyone to hell, with the exception of "Gods selected few", which just happen to be Phelps and his congregation/family. Not saying I agree with Bardock, but he does have a valid point.

Originally posted by Schecter
oh please. some other crackpot will just take his place.

kill him too. and the next one, and the next one, and the next one. not only will it make them afraid of producing new ones, but itll also make your life more fulfilling and orgasmic .

Originally posted by leonheartmm
kill him too. and the next one, and the next one, and the next one. not only will it make them afraid of producing new ones, but itll also make your life more fulfilling and orgasmic .

With that kind of attitude, the lizard men will win for sure.

Originally posted by debbiejo
False.

I'm not taling about court rulings. I'm talking about this certain right to collect under the law. To limit what we like would be great and wonderful, but what if would inhibit others under the law? What about people really distressed? And for different reasons. Are we to take away their rights also because of an obscure point?

Ok, but we are talking about court ruilings. Theoretically, I am not saying that one cannot sue for "mental anguish", just that the must be able to demonstrate a fiscal value that accounts for the damages caused by the offender.

I think we may be having a miscommunication, I am not trying to prevent people from speaking out against things. I am saying that, for any arm of the government to take what is an individual's property, there must be a clear justification for the value they choose. It cannot be arbitrary based on what the judge "thinks" is a good amount.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
mental anguish i think is fair in a lot of such cases. imagine if a million christians arracnge an all out protest at another funeral. and only 2 or three people are attending the funeral. perhaps the actual mental anguish wont be greater than a few hundred people saying the same thing around them. but that isnt the problem. the ones who did it and expressed their spite shoud be made to pay for it. if there are 10 million the penalty should be equally higher.

ok, so what would be the objective measure of mental anguish that allows a transparent and just amount of compensation to be paid to the victims?

Originally posted by Strangelove
If I were the plaintiff, I would sue for slander, not mental anguish. God doesn't actually hate f@gs, as was proven by Robtard et al, so they have a much better case there, I think

I don't believe in suing for intangible reasons for exactly that reason: they're intangible and immeasurable. You can't put a monetary value on mental anguish.

I agree with you entirely. Defimation and slander cases should have been easy wins, though clearly not with the 11 mil price tag.

Originally posted by Schecter
inimalist, i kinda agree with what you're saying. while i get a certain amount of pleasure from the news its still troubling since its a valid slippery slope argument.

i think one solution would be to pass a law protecting the dignity of a funeral (and weddings as well if gay marriage is ever allowed). in fact, i feel if phelps wants to protest against gays and the war and america in general, its his right to, and he has plenty of options for where to spew his excrement besides a funeral.

there has to be a way to resolve this without trampling on our rights, though i doubt it will ever be found without earmarks galore.

:edit: perhaps the exception being that carrying on in front of a family in mourning at a funeral cerimony (a volitale situation to begin with) is a direct endagerment to everyone, like crying "fire" in a crowded theater....i dont know

I agree with your sentiment. The "though i doubt it will ever be found without earmarks galore" probably says it best

Originally posted by Robtard
You know "hundreds" of gay men and it's a bit personal... hmmm.

Ha ha...leave it to you to try to see things that imply homosexuality.

It was ab6out my job history and dating with my wife...it was off topic and it was a little personal, I don't feel like putting my career history AND our conversation was off topic. I like you enough, Robtard, to have that information I sent to Devil King. Would you like me to PM it to you?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ha ha...leave it to you to try to see things that imply homosexuality.

Leave it to you to imply something extremely homosexual is more like it.


And I would like that PM very much.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ha ha...leave it to you to try to see things that imply homosexuality.

It was ab6out my job history and dating with my wife...it was off topic and it was a little personal, I don't feel like putting my career history AND our conversation was off topic. I like you enough, Robtard, to have that information I sent to Devil King. Would you like me to PM it to you?

Sure, I actually am curious how you know "hundreds" of gay men. Did you work in the steel industry at some point?

Nq9c1hC5bys

Originally posted by Bardock42
Leave it to you to imply something extremely homosexual is more like it.


And I would like that PM very much.

Ooops, was on my wrong account.

Send it to this one anyways, okay?

Originally posted by Robtard
Sure, I actually am curious how you know "hundreds" of gay men. Did you work in the steel industry at some point?

Nq9c1hC5bys

I sent it to you. Enjoy! teehee

Originally posted by dadudemon
I sent it to you. Enjoy! teehee

All you sent me was one run-on paragraph, littered with grammatical/spelling errors, about how much you loved "teh kawk". Huh?

Originally posted by Robtard
All you sent me was one run-on paragraph, littered with grammatical/spelling errors, about how much you loved "teh kawk". Huh?

What question are you intending to ask with "Huh?"

Originally posted by InnerRise
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/ap/national/main3439663.shtml


The church says the United States is losing troops because it tolerates gays, including in the military -- hence the many protests it has held at military funerals such as Snyder's. His sexuality was not an issue at the trial.


I figured it was because of bullets and I.E.D.'s...guess not. That church must be overflowing with geniuses. It's nice to see that they make the most of their resources by doing positive affairs.

Protesting at a funeral because someone was gay? Disgusting.

The church should be burnt to the ground.

just set up upside down crosses around the church.

Alright, could someone explain to my why they are targeting the military? The I thought that most of the time, you were kicked out if you admitted to being gay?...or the others would beat the shit out of you?

My point is, they are going about this very idiotically. Of all the organizations to target for homosexuality, they target the US military, which has a record of blatantly discriminating against homosexuals...? I am confused about that.

I think I know the reason they are targeting the military funerals: they know that it would be very controversial and will get them the most attention to target American Funerals. It is a publicity act to get their point across and obviously, it is very effective. "Don't feed the trolls" is probably the best way to go about it...however, it is very hard to no "feed the trolls" when they are celebrate that your son died in a very disrespectful. I wonder how many of the funerals that they have protested that actually had the passing of a homosexual man? Wouldn't it make much much more sense and be much more effective to protest outside of gay clubs? That is a major "duh!!!" on their part.

Idiots.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Alright, could someone explain to my why they are targeting the military? The I thought that most of the time, you were kicked out if you admitted to being gay?...or the others would beat the shit out of you?

My point is, they are going about this very idiotically. Of all the organizations to target for homosexuality, they target the US military, which has a record of blatantly discriminating against homosexuals...? I am confused about that.

I think I know the reason they are targeting the military funerals: they know that it would be very controversial and will get them the most attention to target American Funerals. It is a publicity act to get their point across and obviously, it is very effective. "Don't feed the trolls" is probably the best way to go about it...however, it is very hard to no "feed the trolls" when they are celebrate that your son died in a very disrespectful. I wonder how many of the funerals that they have protested that actually had the passing of a homosexual man? Wouldn't it make much much more sense and be much more effective to protest outside of gay clubs? That is a major "duh!!!" on their part.

Idiots.

Because of the "don't ask, don't tell policy", they feel that by doing this, the military embraces and supports "faggotry", which in turn is the cause of why everyone (except their congregation) will be going to hell.

"Idiots" is correct; they're also hate mongers too.

Or I could have actually read Robtard's post...

Originally posted by Robtard
Because of the "don't ask, don't tell policy", they feel that by doing this, the military embraces and supports "faggotry", which in turn is the cause of why everyone (except their congregation) will be going to hell.

"Idiots" is correct; they're also hate mongers too.

Sherly said its because the US is country of "***-enablers" and the men and women of the US Armed Forces, by willing fighting for America, are in turn supoorting homosexuality, so God is punishing them for it. And according to the WBC, God invented IED's for that very reason. ( )

There so much stuff in the Bible, but these nutcase Bible thumpers only concentrate on the few lines talk about gays.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because of the "don't ask, don't tell policy", they feel that by doing this, the military embraces and supports "faggotry", which in turn is the cause of why everyone (except their congregation) will be going to hell.

"Idiots" is correct; they're also hate mongers too.

After rereading my post, you could tell what I was saying...however, it hurt my eyes to try to read that atrocity of a post...here it is again with corrections, only because it was so horrible the first time.


"Alright, could someone explain to my why they are targeting the military? I thought that most of the time, you were kicked out if you admitted to being gay?...or the others would beat the shit out of you?

My point is, they are going about this very idiotically. Of all the organizations to target for homosexuality, they target the US military, which has a record of blatantly discriminating against homosexuals...? I am confused about that.

I think I know the reason they are targeting the military funerals: they know that it would be very controversial and will get them the most attention to target American military funerals. It is a publicity act to get their point across and obviously, it is very effective. "Don't feed the trolls" is probably the best way to go about it...however, it is very hard to not "feed the trolls" when they are celebrating that your son died in a very disrespectful way. I wonder how protested funerals actually had the passing of a homosexual man? Wouldn't it make much much more sense and be much more effective to protest outside of gay clubs? That is a major "duh!!!" on their part.

Idiots."

Originally posted by dadudemon
After rereading my post, you could tell what I was saying...however, it hurt my eyes to try to read that atrocity of a post...here it is again with corrections, only because it was so horrible the first time.


"Alright, could someone explain to my why they are targeting the military? I thought that most of the time, you were kicked out if you admitted to being gay?...or the others would beat the shit out of you?

My point is, they are going about this very idiotically. Of all the organizations to target for homosexuality, they target the US military, which has a record of blatantly discriminating against homosexuals...? I am confused about that.

I think I know the reason they are targeting the military funerals: they know that it would be very controversial and will get them the most attention to target American military funerals. It is a publicity act to get their point across and obviously, it is very effective. "Don't feed the trolls" is probably the best way to go about it...however, it is very hard to not "feed the trolls" when they are celebrating that your son died in a very disrespectful way. I wonder how protested funerals actually had the passing of a homosexual man? Wouldn't it make much much more sense and be much more effective to protest outside of gay clubs? That is a major "duh!!!" on their part.

Idiots."

So you weren't asking a question, when you said "Alright, could someone explain to my why they are targeting the military?"

Originally posted by dadudemon
After rereading my post, you could tell what I was saying...however, it hurt my eyes to try to read that atrocity of a post...here it is again with corrections, only because it was so horrible the first time.


"Alright, could someone explain to my why they are targeting the military? I thought that most of the time, you were kicked out if you admitted to being gay?...or the others would beat the shit out of you?

My point is, they are going about this very idiotically. Of all the organizations to target for homosexuality, they target the US military, which has a record of blatantly discriminating against homosexuals...? I am confused about that.

I think I know the reason they are targeting the military funerals: they know that it would be very controversial and will get them the most attention to target American military funerals. It is a publicity act to get their point across and obviously, it is very effective. "Don't feed the trolls" is probably the best way to go about it...however, it is very hard to not "feed the trolls" when they are celebrating that your son died in a very disrespectful way. I wonder how protested funerals actually had the passing of a homosexual man? Wouldn't it make much much more sense and be much more effective to protest outside of gay clubs? That is a major "duh!!!" on their part.

Idiots."

They are not targeting homosexuals as individuals, but the nation, and the army as the symbollic representation of the nation, for being permissive of homosexual lifestyles. The believe that negative things that happen to heterosexual individuals stem directly from this tollorance of homosexuality.

Rather than just being controversial, they interpret the dead soldiers as being the material consequence of sin.

Originally posted by Robtard
So you weren't asking a question, when you said "Alright, could someone explain to my why they are targeting the military?"

It was a question and you answered it. But in the same post, I also explained why it was stupid to target the military, regardless of the reason.

Originally posted by inimalist
They are not targeting homosexuals as individuals, but the nation, and the army as the symbollic representation of the nation, for being permissive of homosexual lifestyles. The believe that negative things that happen to heterosexual individuals stem directly from this tollorance of homosexuality.

Rather than just being controversial, they interpret the dead soldiers as being the material consequence of sin.

Hmmm, why wouldn't they go to the source? Really, wouldn't God be punishing the homosexuals for being homosexuals if indeed God actually punishes homosexuals for being homosexuals?

Last time I checked, Jesus Christ taught to be loving to a sinner, not hate the sinner. He showed us clearly with the story about stopping everyone from stoning the adulterous women. I think this point was already made. You cannot be called a Christian unless you are trying to follow the teachings of Christ.

Because they're a bunch of delusional assholes, guided my a bigger delusional @sshole, who happens to be a hatemonger with a God-complex. Good news, Fred Phelps is pushing 80; he won't be around much longer.

(Mods... why is "assholes" allowed, but the singular isn't?)

Originally posted by Robtard
Good news, Fred Phelps is pushing 80; he won't be around much longer.

Bad news, Fred Phelps has infected the minds of the next four generations of his family. What he has to say will be around for a long time to come.

Originally posted by Devil King
Bad news, Fred Phelps has infected the minds of the next four generations of his family. What he has to say will be around for a long time to come.

Sadly, you are right.

Just the same as Muslim Jihad extremists, these Christians extremists are a scourge and an insult to their peers.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Hmmm, why wouldn't they go to the source? Really, wouldn't God be punishing the homosexuals for being homosexuals if indeed God actually punishes homosexuals for being homosexuals?

Last time I checked, Jesus Christ taught to be loving to a sinner, not hate the sinner. He showed us clearly with the story about stopping everyone from stoning the adulterous women. I think this point was already made. You cannot be called a Christian unless you are trying to follow the teachings of Christ.

you actually hit the nail on the head. Christianity, compared to other religions (and this is a really arguable point anyways) has a higher tollorance for individual freedom. The concept of free will (ie, people have the right to choose to turn away from god) has created a christian religion where "loving the sinner" is promoted. We can argue what this loving actually entails, but it is at the core of the reason why these people think it is a national issue and not an individual one.

I, as a person who doesn't believe in God, wouldn't claim to know what makes a real Christian, but the philosophy that is at the core of christianity would see this as an issue of christian society and not of sinners. I heard Tim Phelps interviewed, and again, you can disagree with the conclusion, but this is HIS logic. God is the one who gets to judge "*******", but as a society, to be a pious group of individuals, the government must not allow these people, who have made their descision, to be part of the religious nation.

Again, you or I could argue what this "tollorance" really means, or if it really is tolloration, but it is what the Phelps will use as their rationalization. At that, you can either believe them or come up with a reason why they would make up almost indefensable beliefs.