# Group wants to protest soldier funerals because sinful tolerance of Gays and Lesbians **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 6, 2007, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983 "2007-06-06T13:50:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Plynck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Plynck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plynck)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/41 "2007-06-06T18:42:44Z")
[QUOTE=ivylass] I have to say I don’t like this law. As obnoxious and hideous as the WBC is, they do have a right to protest whatever they like (and I want to go run and take a shower now, thank you.) [/QUOTE] I oppose it, if only so that I can attend Phelps’ own funeral armed with a package of franks and a bag of marshmallows. And a long fork… ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/42 "2007-06-06T18:50:31Z")
[QUOTE=Loach] They are not standing up for the veterans. They are shielding the families dead soldiers from vultures like Phelps at their funerals. It is not a symbolic gesture, it is a physical act. It may not be courageous but unfortunately it is necessary and important. [/QUOTE] I disagree that it’s not symbolic. These families are not in any real physical danger, but leaving that aside, why is it more important or necessary to “shield” the families of veterans than the families of murdered homosexuals? ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/43 "2007-06-06T18:56:52Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I disagree that it’s not symbolic. These families are not in any real physical danger, but leaving that aside, why is it more important or necessary to “shield” the families of veterans than the families of murdered homosexuals? [/QUOTE] It’s not. They didn’t go to Falwell’s funeral either. The group was formed for one reason. If you think their should be a group that covers the other funerals that Phelps protests then go right ahead and form one. ---
**Author:** ![phouka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c5a1d2/32.png) [@phouka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phouka)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/44 "2007-06-06T18:56:56Z")
Isn’t the Constitutionality of this new law covered by the “Fighting Words” doctrine. A quick check of Wikipedia referred back to a 1942 SCOTUS decision that said "These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting words” those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. " Seems to me that’s the very thing WBC is trying to accomplish with their protests, and their behavior is not Constitutionally protected. Are there any doctrines that compete with the Fighting Words doctrine in testing this situation? ---
**Author:** ![Sean\_Factotum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Sean\_Factotum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sean_Factotum)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/45 "2007-06-06T18:57:32Z")
**Nic** how many of your colleagues are Viet Nam era vets, and do you think that this mission has something to do with the way those vets were treated back in their day? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/46 "2007-06-06T19:05:41Z")
[QUOTE=phouka] Isn’t the Constitutionality of this new law covered by the “Fighting Words” doctrine. A quick check of Wikipedia referred back to a 1942 SCOTUS decision that said "These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting words” those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. " Seems to me that’s the very thing WBC is trying to accomplish with their protests, and their behavior is not Constitutionally protected. Are there any doctrines that compete with the Fighting Words doctrine in testing this situation? [/QUOTE] I think it is clear, despite the opinions of the First Amendment absolutists here, that these protests can be subjected to reasonable regulation, and that that would be perfectly constitutional. This law looks like it would pass muster to me, being only a time and place restriction and being content neutral. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/47 "2007-06-06T19:09:30Z")
[QUOTE=Loach] It’s not. They didn’t go to Falwell’s funeral either. The group was formed for one reason. If you think their should be a group that covers the other funerals that Phelps protests then go right ahead and form one. [/QUOTE] I don’t think there should be such a group. You’re off base on this. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/48 "2007-06-06T19:20:22Z")
[QUOTE=Loach] You know that is not quite true. Their infamy has been building. They were not overnight sensations. They are very good at manipulating the press and have built up their brand recognition through years of work. Part of what made them more famous is the WTF factor. It is what got them more press. An anti-gay group protesting at a gay man’s funeral is disgusting but not surprising. On the nightly news it would earn a headshake and a couple of clucks from the average viewer. When you hear that an anti-gay group is protesting some Marine PFC’s funeral the average viewer perks up and goes “What the Fuck?” and listens more intently. WTF does that funeral have to do with homosexuals? Are they protesting the war? The government? The Marine Corps? The viewer become intrigued and disgusted at the same time. A masterful manipulation of the media by Phelps and everyone is playing along. I wish we could ignore him and he would go away but I think he is crazy enough that he would keep doing it. [/QUOTE] Which just proves my point: Phelps was not an unknown before this happened. His protests had received national media attention, but most people didn’t care, because he was just going after homos. Now that he’s going after our honored war dead, it’s suddenly a matter for congressional attention, and people are trying to find some way to weasel around the first ammendment so they can shut him up. Fuck that. We put up with this asshole for years, and we didn’t need to go running to Congress to make him stop. Veterans can suck it up and deal with his bullshit the same way we did. And **Mr. Moto** , when you start crafting laws specifically designed to target unpopular minorities saying things the mainstream doesn’t like to hear, you are not my ally. I’m going to stand with the Phelpses on this one, because speaking as a member of an unpopular minority that says things the mainstream doesn’t want to hear, that’s not a precedent I want to support. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/49 "2007-06-06T19:29:52Z")
[QUOTE=Phlosphr] NO I didn’t know…I spend most of my time in IMHO, but with a quick search I see it. [/QUOTE] Phelps may just be the Most Pitted Person Ever in the history of the SDMB (with the possible exception of George W. Bush, but even Bush has his defenders). ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/50 "2007-06-06T19:42:35Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] And **Mr. Moto** , when you start crafting laws specifically designed to target unpopular minorities saying things the mainstream doesn’t like to hear, you are not my ally. [/QUOTE] But that isn’t what is being done. What is being done is spelling out the time and place to do it - no different than many other restrictions on protests already on the books. Frisby v. Schultz, mentioned above, was a case brought by antiabortion protesters (an unpopular minority, indeed) who wanted to picket outside of the house of a doctor who performed them. They were peaceful in their protest, yet still ran afoul of a city ordinance banning picketing outside of a residence, and were prosecuted. Now, shouldn’t they have been prosecuted? Shouldn’t they have availed themselves of legal forms of protest - including marching in those same streets, leafleting the neighborhood, making phone calls, or the like? Yes and yes. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/51 "2007-06-06T19:50:00Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] But that isn’t what is being done. What is being done is spelling out the time and place to do it - no different than many other restrictions on protests already on the books. [/QUOTE] Except, of course, the law only exists to get Fred Phelps - and no one else - to be quiet. And it only exists because he protested military funerals - not because of any of the other funerals that he’s protested. They may have been able to draft the law in such a way that it will pass a review by the Supreme Court, but it was created with the specific intent of preventing one particular individual from making one particular expression. And I have a big problem with that. And so should you. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/52 "2007-06-06T20:09:40Z")
I’m thinking it’s a bad law, but that’s not why I’m posting. I’m posting to say that one of the things that pisses me off about this pig-phucker is that he draws attention away from the pig-phuckers who _should_ be getting protested at these funerals, namely George W. “Pig-phucker” Bush, and Dick “Pig-phucker” Cheney. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/53 "2007-06-06T20:21:34Z")
[QUOTE=Loach] If you look into the history of the WBC you will see that every member of the family that can get through college becomes a lawyer. They love sueing and bringing their views into court any chance they can get. This law will just give them another forum, possibly in front of SCOTUS. IMHO there is not much more you can do without putting limits on the 1st Amendment. [/QUOTE] Or, better yet, read [this](http://www.addictedtohate.com/news.php). ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/54 "2007-06-06T20:22:53Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] Except, of course, the law only exists to get Fred Phelps - and no one else - to be quiet. [/QUOTE] He’s the only one making noise. I don’t think he’ll be the last one, though. Given that, why not address this through law? [QUOTE=Miller] And it only exists because he protested military funerals - not because of any of the other funerals that he’s protested. [/QUOTE] I think it is because of the cumulative effect of his bad behavior. A survey of state law shows that the states that have drafted or considered legislation addressing this generally apply it to all funerals, not just military ones. Federal law covers those of soldiers, but that may be for jurisdictional purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/55 "2007-06-06T20:31:24Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I don’t think there should be such a group. You’re off base on this. [/QUOTE] Then you shouldn’t have a problem with the Patriot Guard. They don’t go to all funerals and you don’t see a need for a group to go to all funerals. [QUOTE=Miller] Which just proves my point: Phelps was not an unknown before this happened. His protests had received national media attention, but most people didn’t care, because he was just going after homos. Now that he’s going after our honored war dead, it’s suddenly a matter for congressional attention, and people are trying to find some way to weasel around the first ammendment so they can shut him up. Fuck that. We put up with this asshole for years, and we didn’t need to go running to Congress to make him stop. Veterans can suck it up and deal with his bullshit the same way we did. [/QUOTE] I disagree somewhat. Yes I think that there is some complacency when something doesn’t effect you directly. Some of this was due to homophobia. Most was due to human nature. People shake their heads when they see a family died in a fire. Then they forget about it. That doesn’t make them pro-fire. Phelps didn’t start getting widespread attention when he started impacting more people directly. Just because he got some stories before does not mean he was well known. These things build and he is a master manipulator. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/56 "2007-06-06T20:34:28Z")
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99] I’m thinking it’s a bad law, but that’s not why I’m posting. I’m posting to say that one of the things that pisses me off about this pig-phucker is that he draws attention away from the pig-phuckers who _should_ be getting protested at these funerals, namely George W. “Pig-phucker” Bush, and Dick “Pig-phucker” Cheney. [/QUOTE] Go phuck yourself. There shouldn’t be _any_ protests at these funerals or any others. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/57 "2007-06-06T20:38:58Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] They may have been able to draft the law in such a way that it will pass a review by the Supreme Court, but it was created with the specific intent of preventing one particular individual from making one particular expression. And I have a big problem with that. And so should you. [/QUOTE] Let me address this also. I have a problem with this as well, but only because such a law is obviously needed. In the past, even our extremist zealots wouldn’t have gone so far as to disrupt a funeral. If a law is needed now, it is because in this particular case the societal rules that constrained people like this have completely broken down. Clearer rules will benefit everyone here. And if Phelps and his band of idiots choose not to live by them, so’s the better. Lock them up. There is no possible way that a ban on protests at someone’s funeral can be considered a hindrance of political speech. It merely moves that speech to a more appropriate venue. ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/58 "2007-06-06T20:41:54Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] But that isn’t what is being done. What is being done is spelling out the time and place to do it - no different than many other restrictions on protests already on the books. Frisby v. Schultz, mentioned above, was a case brought by antiabortion protesters (an unpopular minority, indeed) who wanted to picket outside of the house of a doctor who performed them. They were peaceful in their protest, yet still ran afoul of a city ordinance banning picketing outside of a residence, and were prosecuted. Now, shouldn’t they have been prosecuted? Shouldn’t they have availed themselves of legal forms of protest - including marching in those same streets, leafleting the neighborhood, making phone calls, or the like? Yes and yes. [/QUOTE] There is a bit of a difference between picketing a private residence, even if you’re staying on public property (like the street) and picketing a “public accomodation” (e.g., private business open to the public) like a cemetary. By your rationale, the anti-abortionists should have also been able to be banned from picketing at the actual abortion clinics (another “public accomodation”), which has never happened. They are prevented from interfering with patients entering the clinics (theoretically more than realistically), and from entering the actual premises of the business - but they are NOT prevented from picketing on the sidewalks out in front. That’s a much more comparable situation. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/59 "2007-06-06T20:52:51Z")
As I’ve said before on the boards, a military funeral sponsored by the government and held in a public place is at least in part a public expression of a matter of political and public interest. It seems eminently fair to me to allow other, competing political opinions to also be expressed there. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983/60 "2007-06-06T21:00:38Z")
[QUOTE=Loach] There shouldn’t be _any_ protests at these funerals or any others. [/QUOTE] There shouldn’t be crappy television shows, either. Do we need to make it a legal prohibition? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/group-wants-to-protest-soldier-funerals-because-sinful-tolerance-of-gays-and-lesbians/406983.md?page=4)