Does this make you happy, too?

[amotley]

no one has the right to intrude on your loved ones funeral or memorial service no matter what! go somewhere else to protest the war!!!!!!

 

[Mikeinsmd]

Y'all wrapping yourselves in the flag in order to support the war is pitiful.
What if JPC calls you Macaca at his rally?

You pathetic, sniveling little piece of garbage.

 

[JPC sr]

Mr. Ferrari

You pathetic, sniveling little piece of garbage.

Mike here is one of those that attacks the messanger while avoiding the message.

It seems to be a popular method on this Forum.

 

[smcop]

Well I do not agree at all.

I say the Court has made an unConstitutional decision.

Not just the right of free speach, but more-so the right to free expression of religion.

There are similar events where other funerals are protested but only this one gets sanctioned because of its religious stand.

I expect a higher Court will over-rule the decision as unConstitutional, and rightly so.

The right to "free" speech does not overide someone's right to privacy. When speech becomes antaganistic and done soley to annoy another person then they loose that right. It's the age old adage, you can't yell fire in a movie theater, even though you have a right to free speech, your rights can't infringe on others. An example is a low life father wanting to have the right not to pay for the children he help bring into this world while the rest of society has to do that. We as a society have a right to lock the low life father up and feel sorry that the children he ignored for so many years are now becoming like him!

 

[KingFish]

 

[amotley]

The right to "free" speech does not overide someone's right to privacy. When speech becomes antaganistic and done soley to annoy another person then they loose that right. It's the age old adage, you can't yell fire in a movie theater, even though you have a right to free speech, your rights can't infringe on others. An example is a low life father wanting to have the right not to pay for the children he help bring into this world while the rest of society has to do that. We as a society have a right to lock the low life father up and feel sorry that the children he ignored for so many years are now becoming like him!

 

[Plan B]

The right to "free" speech does not overide someone's right to privacy. ..

In most cases that is not true. And recent Supreme Court decisions have set precidence...
The right to privacy is not in the Constitution.
The Appellate court will turn this bad boy in a heart beat.
Besides, that church is really protesting honosexuals; aint all you SMIBs against that too? Whats th problem?

 

[~mellabella~]

In most cases that is not true. And recent Supreme Court decisions have set precidence...
The right to privacy is not in the Constitution.
The Appellate court will turn this bad boy in a heart beat.
Besides, that church is really protesting honosexuals; aint all you SMIBs against that too? Whats th problem?

I don't really think this suit has as much to do with privacy as it is about the lack of common decency and respect of people today. Its disgusting. But since you seem so excited that this the right of privacy is not in the constitution, let me know the next time you have a funeral in your family. I'll come by and protest. I can do that, since you agree that there is no such thing as the right to privacy, right?

And by the way, what is a honosexual?

 

[Go G-Men]

Mike here is one of those that attacks the messanger while avoiding the message.

First off you have to have message worth hearing before you can accuse anyone of avoiding it. Secondly, as a politician, wanna be, you should know how to spell messenger (messanger). I am sure the fine people of the 5th district are looking forward to you trying to spell concession.

 

[Bann]

Well I do not agree at all.

I say the Court has made an unConstitutional decision.

Not just the right of free speach, but more-so the right to free expression of religion.

There are similar events where other funerals are protested but only this one gets sanctioned because of its religious stand.

I expect a higher Court will over-rule the decision as unConstitutional, and rightly so.

From the article:

"A number of states have passed laws regarding funeral protests, and Congress has passed a law prohibiting such protests at federal cemeteries, but the Maryland lawsuit is believed to be the first filed by the family of a fallen serviceman."

Free speech is one thing, but you still can't yell FIRE in a movie theater without consequences.

"Religious" stand? What religious stand? Are you referring to the "religious stand" of the serviceman's family at his burial? Or are you only referring to the "religious stand" of the whackjob (so-called religious) freaks who are going around our country infringing on OTHER people's religious freedoms?

I hope it does go to a higher court.

 

[Bann]

The family did have the funeral and they did get to express their free speach and they had their funeral.

But that family wants their neighbors and everybody in town to join then in their funeral expression without any disagreement or protest from anyone else and that is going too far.

When a person of the KKK gets buried then they have a protest, or a convicted criminal's funeral, or even the funeral of a President or a King or Saddam Hussein or other.

A funeral given by a family in a public setting is a public event and subject to protest.

Congress has passed a law prohibiting protests at FEDERAL cemeteries, and some states have passed similar laws. So, if other states and/or local jurisdictions do the same - then the arguments will be over. Protesting of any kind at funerals would be breaking the law & subject to consequences.

I'd love to see a couple of the family members at one of these funerals turn the tables around and just go beat the snot out of a few of the whackjob protesters. Let THEM press charges and sue the family fore being mean.

I'd like to see how far that goes in court.

 

[residentofcre]

It sure makes ME smile.
Hope this story hasn't been posted yet...

FOXNews.com - Jury Awards Father Nearly $11 Million in Funeral Protesters Case - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

It has but your's has a better link to another side of the argument.... there are still a lot of questions to be answered...

 

[PsyOps]

In most cases that is not true. And recent Supreme Court decisions have set precidence...
The right to privacy is not in the Constitution.
The Appellate court will turn this bad boy in a heart beat.
Besides, that church is really protesting honosexuals; aint all you SMIBs against that too? Whats th problem?

That's not true. The 9th Amendment defines our right to privacy:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Besides, just because it isn't specifically outlined in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right. The Constitution isn't a limitation to our rights. Because it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right.

Here's a little story I think 2nd Amendment gave me. It's mostly about gun control and 2nd Amendment rights but there's a part in this story that talks about natural rights and whether the Constitution has to even exist in order for us to have rights. Here's part of it:

“I think Dave and Bill are right,” I said. “The whole question of gun rights hinges on what the 2nd Amendment means. If it means the right to bear arms belongs to the states, then it means you and I don’t have any right to individual gun ownership.”

“Well, let’s start with this,” Mac said. “Can you find anything in the 2nd Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that says the individual can’t have arms?”

“What’s that got to do with it?” Bill asked.

“That’s not an answer. Just keep in mind my question is not whether you think the Constitution allows individuals to carry guns but whether or not there’s anything in it that says they can’t?

“Anyone can answer it, but the question is really directed at Bill.”

There was a long pause while we all thought about that. I don’t know where Mac was taking this, but it smelled suspiciously like a trap and I’m sure Bill felt that way, too.

Mac waited patiently.

“I don’t think so,” Dave finally said.

I agreed, too, but Bill still didn’t say anything.

“And do you also understand that the Bill of Rights is not the source of our rights. It’s not even a complete list of our rights.”

“What are you talking about?” I asked.

“Mac’s losing it,” Bill said and threw his arms up.

“I’m asking you if you understand that we do not get our rights from the Bill of Rights.”

“Of course we do,” Bill said. “That’s why they wrote the Bill of Rights.”

“I’ve got to agree with Bill,” I said.

Dave said nothing. He seemed to be thinking.

“I’m saying this because the Founding Fathers did not believe we got our rights from the Bill of Rights. Nor did they believe they came about as a result of being American, Christian, of European decent, or white. They believed everyone had these rights even if they lived in Europe, China, or the moon. They called them Natural Rights. Where these rights were not allowed, they believed they still existed but were denied.”

“You should be writing fiction,” Bill said.

“Well, it’s a question as to whether or not our rights exist apart from government,” Mac said. “Let me ask you this,” he said to Bill. “In a country where children have no civil rights, do they still have a right not to be molested? Do women in countries where they have a second-citizen status have the right not to be abused by their husbands, even if the government won’t protect them?”

Bill didn’t answer.

“Then is it too much of a stretch for you to understand that the Founding Fathers believed everyone has the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to fair trials...?” His voice trailed off.

Bill still wouldn’t answer.

“In other words,” Dave said, “it’s a question as to whether the rights of the citizens in China are at the pleasure of the government or if they have them but are being denied, or if the Jews had basic human rights in Germany even if Hitler didn’t let them exercise them?”

 

[JPC sr]

Mr. Ferrari

That's not true. The 9th Amendment defines our right to privacy:

Having "privacy" does not mean secrecy.

Like there is privacy for a toilet and bath room but we still know what goes on in there as it is not a secret.

Privacy in one's own home is fine unless they commit a crime in secret and then the law can and will violate the privacy.

Citizens can not secretly use illegal drugs or molest children or abuse their spouse and call it privacy,

because privacy does not mean secrecy.

So having an open public funeral and claiming a right to privacy from the general public standing on the side of the road is adsurd.

Besides, just because it isn't specifically outlined in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right. The Constitution isn't a limitation to our rights. Because it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right.

Here's a little story I think 2nd Amendment gave me. It's mostly about gun control and 2nd Amendment rights but there's a part in this story that talks about natural rights and whether the Constitution has to even exist in order for us to have rights. Here's part of it:

I agree with this big time, but I object to the hypocrisy of those that deny "natural rights" to other people claiming they are not American citizens and therefore not protected by the Bill of Rights.

Like the right to pro-create, the rights of so-called "illegal" migrants, the natural rights of prisoners not to be tortured by the USA.

The "natural rights" do not just mean the 2nd Amendment's right to bare arms.

Since natural rights are the basis of the US Bill of Rights then it applies to all humanity and not just gun owners in the USA.

 

[Toxick]

Like there is privacy for a toilet and bath room but we still know what goes on in there as it is not a secret.

As opposed to a funeral, where there are a bunch of secret rituals and nobody knows what goes on?

Is that what you're trying to tell us?

So having an open public funeral and claiming a right to privacy from the general public standing on the side of the road is adsurd.

Who's having funerals on the side of the road?

And who has open public funerals except for celebrities, and former heads of state?

Every single funeral that I've been to - and I've been to plenty, unfortunately - they were inside of churches and/or funeral homes with the families and friends of the deceased. And then a procession goes from there to the cemetery where the body is laid to rest.

Cemeteries are private property or and some are federal property. There is, and should be, the expectation of privacy much like there would be in your back yard, or in a government building.

Like I said before, if these people want to protest, then let them have at it - but they should do it where they're not infringing on the rights of others.

And where they're trying to incite a riot.

 

[JPC sr]

Mr. Ferrari

As opposed to a funeral, where there are a bunch of secret rituals and nobody knows what goes on?

Is that what you're trying to tell us?

Yes exactly, that would be a secretive and private funeral.

I know the Mormons have a private Church (sancuary) where only members can enter,

but the vast majority of Churches and religious buildings are open to the general public.

Princess Diana had a public display and then a private service and it was performed quite well.

Who's having funerals on the side of the road?

And who has open public funerals except for celebrities, and former heads of state?

The funeral is not on the side of the road - it is the protesters are on the side of the road and outside the Church building and at the cemetary.

This is saying that the protesting is illegal like a protester on the side of the road with a sign and screaming decent is not allowed.

That, I say, is un-American.

Cemeteries are private property or and some are federal property. There is, and should be, the expectation of privacy much like there would be in your back yard, or in a government building.

Private property and federal property does not mean it is secretive property and the public has every right to look and scream inside under the first amendment.

There is little privacy in my back yard and in a gov building they must close the door and oftentimes lock the door to get any secrecy and even then the snitches inside will often expose the hidden privacy to the public.

I have even heard of protest at Arlinton National cemetary where the grave was dug up and the body moved to another cemetary to settle down the protest.

Like I said before, if these people want to protest, then let them have at it - but they should do it where they're not infringing on the rights of others.

And where they're trying to incite a riot.

If the protest is not trying to incite a riot then it would be a poor excuse of a protest.

It is the funeral that is imposing on the right to protest and particularly their religious protest.

Those were nonviolent protest and it did provoke an unjust response so I say that protest was a success so far.

 

[belvak]

Yes exactly, that would be a secretive and private funeral.

I know the Mormons have a private Church (sancuary) where only members can enter,

but the vast majority of Churches and religious buildings are open to the general public.

Princess Diana had a public display and then a private service and it was performed quite well. The funeral is not on the side of the road - it is the protesters are on the side of the road and outside the Church building and at the cemetary.

This is saying that the protesting is illegal like a protester on the side of the road with a sign and screaming decent is not allowed.

That, I say, is un-American. Private property and federal property does not mean it is secretive property and the public has every right to look and scream inside under the first amendment.

There is little privacy in my back yard and in a gov building they must close the door and oftentimes lock the door to get any secrecy and even then the snitches inside will often expose the hidden privacy to the public.

I have even heard of protest at Arlinton National cemetary where the grave was dug up and the body moved to another cemetary to settle down the protest. If the protest is not trying to incite a riot then it would be a poor excuse of a protest.

It is the funeral that is imposing on the right to protest and particularly their religious protest.

Those were nonviolent protest and it did provoke an unjust response so I say that protest was a success so far.

You Sir, have serious issues. Any funeral, regardless of where it is held, is private unless the mourners invite outsiders to join them (be it participating or protesting). Sorry, but I can't buy your views. And just why do you not see that it is wrong for radicals to use the funerals of U.S. citizens, who volunteered their lives for your freedom, to protest homosexuality (or anything else)? Done.

 

[~mellabella~]

Will someone PLEASE...

ban JPC SR from using emoticons????

 

[belvak]

ban JPC SR from using emoticons????

Looks like he only knows a few of them anyway...

 

[JPC sr]

Mr. Ferrari

You Sir, have serious issues. Any funeral, regardless of where it is held, is private unless the mourners invite outsiders to join them (be it participating or protesting). Sorry, but I can't buy your views.

The Church is not a private place and I do not see how anyone can honestly say otherwise.

We do not knock at the Church door but just walk right in.

Also many funeral possessions have police escort with lights and sometimes sirens going down the public highway as a public display, and many people still pull their cars over out of public respect for the deceased.

Calling a funeral at the local church then local cemetary as a "private" event is just not being honest or realistic.

And just why do you not see that it is wrong for radicals to use the funerals of U.S. citizens, who volunteered their lives for your freedom, to protest homosexuality (or anything else)? Done.

I say this is the real issue because if the "protesters" were cheering happy sayings and nice signs then it would be a "public" funeral.

The only demand to stop the protest is because it is denouncing the person and it is a religious effort.

The protesters have the right to free speech and free expression of their religion and if the funeral does not like it then the funeral needs to be done in private and not in the public arena of public Church, public streets and public cemetary.

I will be shocked if the higher Court does not overturn that un-American decision.