New Law Bans Demonstrations at Funerals

Amen, Brother Ed -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

Oh c'mon Rufus, you know full well the only reason that these self-righteous cultist creeps show up at funerals and at other functions is to entice others to react. It isn't for the purpose to spread the word of God that's for sure. If they wanted to spread the word of God it is best to do it in an apealing sort of way.
Does the manner in which they act seem apealing to you?

 

What's sad to me is we have to make a law to protect a sorrowful time of a grieving family. Man no longer has a conscience when they can intrude on a mother burying her child.

 

Amen, Brother Ed -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

You patting yourself on the back Brother Ed?

 

No. The manner in which they act is quite abhorrent to me. However, you have levelled an accusation that is without foundation. While their message may be hard for some to take, you have not demonstrated how they are inciting people to riot.

 

What message? God hates Fags?
Yeah buddy that's quite a message they got goin there.
As I said they are self righteous cultist that want to encite reactions not to apeal to anyone.

 

The problem is God hates the sin not the sinner. He sent his only Son to die for the sinner.

 

Right you are LeBuick:thumbs:
Now if you can teach Fred Phelps how the present that message then he might have a better reception at these so called protests.That would of course defeat his purpose since Phelps seems to want to condemn as many people to hell rather than to lead them to Jesus to save them.

 

Of course. It is good streching exercise :1_grouphug:

 

Giving a message that gets a negative response is not against the law.

 

Most certainly. As they misinterpreted the Constitution in Kelo v New London, Roe v Wade, Bush v. Gore, Plessy v Ferguson etc., etc. How folks can take a simple expression like "Congress Shall Make No Law" and twist it to somehow say "Congress Shall Make Law" is a pretty remarkable feat of misinterpretation.

 

So you are not for te first amendment? Or do you agree with me that the first amendment is not unqualified? It is obviously the latter, it seems to me. But you have chosen to defend the indefensible.

 

Sure...they're wrong, I'm right. The Constitution is very similar to the Bible, it is what it is and says what it says. There are people who read it for what it says and there are people that like to read into it what they want it to say. When the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law abridging the right to freedom of speech" and then Congress makes a law that tells people that they can only speak in a certain zone, at a certain time, this is an obvious abridgement for it is a law that diminishes or lessens the power of the citizens' rights and thus, SCOTUS has read into the Constitution something that it does not say. Further, if it was all about "intent" then I doubt that SCOTUS would continuously rule in favor of pornographers and heinous artists. I would have full confidence that the framers of the Constitution never intended for pornography to be covered by the freedom of speech. Similarly, I believe the framers did intend for citizens to freely assemble in a public area and freely speak their minds without an abridgement upon that freedom.

 

I am in favor of the first amendment and all aspects of the constitution save for the amendments that were never ratified by the states.

I do not agree that the first amendment is not unqualified.

I choose to defend two documents. If you find either of these documents to be indefensible then the problem is not with me.

 

Waving signs around stating "God Hates Fags" is done soley to provoke others. These people have no real message and have certainly missed the boat on spreading the Gospel. They use their words as a terrorist would use a bomb, their intent is to cause more hate and destruction.
And that sir is riotous behaviour.

 

Are you the arbiter of what is "responsible free speech" versus "irresponsible free speech'? Is the government the arbiter? If we only have the freedom to speak responsibly then how is this freedom? There is an individual that has said the following out loud...

"I know that human beings and fish can co-exist peacefully."

"They misunderstimated the will of the commander in chief too."

"Rarely is the question asked is our children learning."​

I believe that the above are prime examples of irresponsible speech. Can I now have this individual arrested?

I will rebuke that person for cussing and being rude but I will defend his constitutional right to be heard.

Do you not see how these types of laws are a slippery slope to impacting Christians and their legal ability to preach the Gospel? If we are to only be allowed to speak when it doesn't offend anyone, how are you going to street preach without getting arrested? The only cause for this new law is some people's feelings are hurt. If the criteria for abridging the freedom of speech in this instance is because people desire to mourn in peace, then what will prevent new laws being created to prevent Christians from preaching outside of theaters?After all don't people have a right to be entertained in peace and aren't street preachers interfering with that right? Perhaps they will say you can preach outside of a theater but not before or after show times. Then will you still believe that we still have freedom of speech? How about outside of a restaurant? Don't people have a right to have a nice meal without some Jesus freak getting in their grill? How about outside of schools? Aren't we interfering with the rights of students to get an education without the stress about fearing God? Free speech is free and without gov't restraint. When a gov't tells people when, where and what time people can say certain things then I don't see how you can consider this freedom.