Lets help solve a problem - The hate group WBC

[PizzaSHARK]

Some laws are worth breaking.

Hi, Batman. Have you found Joker yet?

Anyways how is it against the law to not serve someone? If a KKK members enters a business owned by a black or gay person, doesn't he or she have the right to refuse service? Can't busineses refuse service and/or not condone the behavior of a group of people?

Not without good reason. Being a member of a hate group is not reason enough.

---------- Post added 2012-12-19 at 12:21 AM ----------

Of COURSE I'm heavily biased against a group of deranged, satanic individuals. I'm very proud of the fact that I am strongly and blatantly biased.

Could you just not post, then?

[rhorle]

It all comes down to this though, you limit one group, and it can lead to the limiting of many groups or everyone.

Free speech isn't a blanket immunity allowing you to do anything you want. No one wants to stop their views or deem in unnecessary. The thing is though you can be classified as a hate group and be legally stopped from doing certain things but still be allowed to preach/practice what you want. This is how neo-nazi's and the Klan operate in America today.

Every so often the Klan has a parade in some city. They get protected by the police from people that want to hate on them because of their views. But at the same time the Klan isn't allowed to march with fiery effigies of non-whites. Why? Because you can be a hate group with out violating laws against hatred.

[FathomFear]

If they don't like living in a country with homosexuals on it I say we put them on a raft and aim it towards Cuba or something.

Actually, Cuba decriminalized sodomy about 20 years before the U.S. did. Sex changes are also covered under their health care.

So yeah, aiming it towards Cuba wouldn't solve much...

[Tyrod]

Could you just not post, then?

Oh so I shouldn't express my opinion because I'm on one side of the argument? LOL? WTB (un)common sense for some of these people I swear, PST PAYING WELL

[PizzaSHARK]

Oh so I shouldn't express my opinion because I'm on one side of the argument? LOL? WTB (un)common sense for some of these people I swear, PST PAYING WELL

You clearly don't have any interest in knowing the facts, and you explicitly stated you are proud of your ignorance and bias. There is little to nothing to be gained from attempting to have a discussion with you on the subject.

So, could you please just not post?

[rhorle]

Not without good reason. Being a member of a hate group is not reason enough.

Hate groups are not protected by anti discrimination laws. So being a member of a hate group certainly is reason enough for a person to refuse service, entry, or anything else. If a hate group is an actual religion then you don't have enough of a reason. But at what point should a group lose their classification as a religion?

In the case of the WBC it seems pretty clear that they aren't a religion or at the very least are not the one they are registered under.

[FathomFear]

It's a free country. Homosexuals are free to live there, but so are the people who hate them.
I can't see the problem just because you don't agree with their religious/politic statements?

There's a difference between hating a group of people and promoting hated against a group of people. In Canada, for example, which does have hate speech legislation, the former is perfectly legal. But the moment you start endorsing and promoting hatred/violence/etc--it becomes something that can be questioned in a court.

I think many people in this thread have very slippery-slope thinking when it comes to this issue, when in reality it's not that difficult to create a system that allows free thought but sometimes draws lines around the promotion of hate.

[rhorle]

So, could you please just not post?

If you don't want to have a discussion with them then logic dictates that you don't keep asking them questions or having a conversation with them. Ignore them, plain and simple. If you don't have the willpower to do it yourself then add them to your forum ignore list.

But stop derailing discussions by telling people not to post.

[PizzaSHARK]

Hate groups are not protected by anti discrimination laws. So being a member of a hate group certainly is reason enough for a person to refuse service, entry, or anything else. If a hate group is an actual religion then you don't have enough of a reason. But at what point should a group lose their classification as a religion?

In the case of the WBC it seems pretty clear that they aren't a religion or at the very least are not the one they are registered under.

I'll wait for a judge or group of judges to decide that. Personally I'd love to see them lose their status as a church and start having to pay taxes. But it hasn't happened yet.

[Seranthor]

WRONG, I had this argument in the other thread on the subject that got locked. The "you open up a bad door" is bad speculation at best. Why would creating a law that limits the right of an extremist hate group suddenly mean that we would all lose ALL free speech? It would be ONE minor law simply forbidding hate speech at this level, namely, protesting at funerals. The scenario you depict is completely and utterly implausible. Do you honestly believe the American people would allow ALL of our free speech to be gone? NOPE. Not even close. We can and SHOULD limit the free speech of these FUCKING sociopaths.

Here... let me help you... taking away their right to free speech, can and will lead to the removal of speech rights of any number of minorities... if YOUR plan had been enacted say um... 150 yrs ago.. women wouldn't ever have the right to vote because they'd be minority and someone would have made a law against their ever voting... same sex marriage would have NEVER even been considered because the majority would have criminalized it... black having equal rights or voting would never ever have occured... do you not realize that?

Tell me this... are you willing to give up YOUR right of free speech to silence WBC? Yes or No?

[Tyrod]

Here... let me help you... taking away their right to free speech, can and will lead to the removal of speech rights of any number of minorities... if YOUR plan had been enacted say um... 150 yrs ago.. women wouldn't ever have the right to vote because they'd be minority and someone would have made a law against their ever voting... same sex marriage would have NEVER even been considered because the majority would have criminalized it... black having equal rights or voting would never ever have occured... do you not realize that?

Tell me this... are you willing to give up YOUR right of free speech to silence WBC? Yes or No?

Here... let me help YOU... taking away their "right" to free speech, WILL NOT necessarily lead to the removal of speech rights for ANYONE, including minorities. Because it's simple common sense and LOGIC. Why in the FUCK would we suddenly revert to backwards mentality and out of NOWHERE have the desire to take away free speech of minorities?? Where are you getting the proof for this baseless assumption?

This is not quantum mechanics, it's actually exceedingly simple. You take away the rights of the people who do not deserve it. In this case, WBC. Their "right" to protest at funerals inherently infringes on the ACTUAL rights of the victims to mourn their lost loved ones. WHY THE FUCK DO WE PROTECT THE RIGHT OF THE TROLLS AND NOT THE VICTIMS?

Here is my thought process: when you're a shithead and a troll (as are all members of Westboro Baptist Cult), you surrender your right to free speech because all you're doing is trying to spread hate, instigate violence, and cause grief. Why should we as a society allow ourselves to be trolled by these fucks? I'll answer that, WE SHOULDN'T. Our laws in this scenario have FAILED US. They need to be amended to account for this failure and ensure the safety and well-being of NORMAL citizens and NOT these batshit crazy inbred pricks. How you fail to see this is beyond me.

I'll give you another example to illustrate how our current laws and "justice" system FAIL US all. Think about mass murderers, like the red hair psychopath who shot up the theater. Do you HONESTLY think this fucker should be protected by law and have a fair trial and go to jail wasting our taxpayer money? NOPE. He needs to be tied from his penis to the back of a truck and dragged across a rocky desert until he dies. He should NOT have any rights whatsoever. In fact, he should no longer be considered human in a legal sense. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that he did what he did so there is no need for any trial. He just needs to do humanity the favor of dying.

To a lesser degree, the same logic applies to WBC. They should NOT have the right to free speech because they do not deserve it. Plain and simple.

[Seranthor]

*snip*

Write the law, post it here, And we'll show you just how fucking flawed your logic is... m'kay? Perhaps you haven't realized it... WBC has been to the god damn supreme court about their free speech rights, and fucking won... what is so difficult for you to grasp... what they are doing is legal.

If you want to make it illegal, then write the god damn law that will survive supreme court review.

And by your own definition YOU could have YOUR right of free speech for trying to spread hate and causing someone grief.

So, be careful what you wish for.

[Tyrod]

Write the law, post it here, And we'll show you just how fucking flawed your logic is... m'kay? Perhaps you haven't realized it... WBC has been to the god damn supreme court about their free speech rights, and fucking won... what is so difficult for you to grasp... what they are doing is legal.

If you want to make it illegal, then write the god damn law that will survive supreme court review.

I don't give a FUCK what the stupid supreme court ruled with regard to their bullshit free speech. In addition, I never pretended to know precisely what the law that would prevent these fucks from spreading this horseshit would be. Here is what I did say however, and I'll try to spell it out for you for the 130942348th time so maybe you'll get it.

THEY DO NOT DESERVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IN THE WAY THEY ARE APPLYING IT. I don't know how much more simply than that I can say it. I do not give a FUCK what the current man-made law system says is legal and illegal. I'm fully fucking aware that they currently have the "legal" right to pull the shit they pull. Here's the main point I'm trying to get across:

JUST BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING LEGAL DOESN'T MAKE IT MORALLY CORRECT.

Some clueless, flawed idiots thought it was a good idea to give everyone the same unlimited amount of free speech. Clearly, that doesn't fucking work in a practical sense. Just because I'm one of the few intelligent people who realizes this to be the case doesn't make me wrong.

It leaves me in awe that you can be SO incalculably thick as to think that the current laws and legal system we have are without flaw. Just absolutely baffling. You SERIOUSLY think that this is the best we can do? A general "YAY FREE SPEECH FOR EVERYONE WOOOOOO" law that doesn't care to adjust itself to specific scenarios in cases where dipshits abuse it to the detriment of society? Get the fuck out of here with your overwhelming ignorance and stupidity.

[Seranthor]

*snip*

So you've fucking identified the fucking problem... so have millions of others... if you are so fucking brilliant... then find a fucking solution instead of raging, insulting, and generally harassing folks.

Quit marching around and acting like you are the only one that SEES the problem... Fucking offer a legal solution that can be enacted into law.

[Tyrod]

So you've fucking identified the fucking problem... so have millions of others... if you are so fucking brilliant... then find a fucking solution instead of raging, insulting, and generally harassing folks.

Quit marching around and acting like you are the only one that SEES the problem... Fucking offer a legal solution that can be enacted into law.

Idiot, you can't be flippy-floppy in your argument because then you lose all credibility and look like an uneducated retard. First you argue that it's their legal right (which is idiotic in and of itself) and once I obliterate that pathetic attempt at an argument with sound logic you change your argument entirely just so you don't appear like a fool even thought it's already much too late for that.

I haven't just identified the problem which the "millions of others" who also have, as you claim, obviously doesn't include your stupid ass. I've proposed a solution, just not the fucking specifics of it. You limit the free speech of extremists by prohibiting the protesting at funerals, banning hateful web addresses "godhatesfags.com" for example, and generally shut them the FUCK down because their sole purpose is to cause unrest, grief, and propagate hate. I'm not going to draft the exact legal document that could be submitted for direct approval to become a law, I'm not a fucking lawyer dumbass. I'm just an educated and intelligent citizen concerned about the failure of our current laws. You on the other hand, are a worthless troll who just likes to argue for the sake of arguing and not because you actually have some valid points to bring to the contrary.

[Seranthor]

Idiot, you can't be flippy-floppy in your argument because then you lose all credibility and look like an uneducated retard. First you argue that it's their legal right (which is idiotic in and of itself) and once I obliterate that pathetic attempt at an argument with sound logic you change your argument entirely just so you don't appear like a fool even thought it's already much too late for that.

I haven't just identified the problem which the "millions of others" who also have, as you claim, obviously doesn't include your stupid ass. I've proposed a solution, just not the fucking specifics of it. You limit the free speech of extremists by prohibiting the protesting at funerals, banning hateful web addresses "godhatesfags.com" for example, and generally shut them the FUCK down because their sole purpose is to cause unrest, grief, and propagate hate. I'm not going to draft the exact legal document that could be submitted for direct approval to become a law, I'm not a fucking lawyer dumbass. I'm just an educated and intelligent citizen concerned about the failure of our current laws. You on the other hand, are a worthless troll who just likes to argue for the sake of arguing and not because you actually have some valid points to bring to the contrary.

I have known these people nearly 20 years, in fact, I've been working AGAINST them for at least 15, I was involved in the case they won in the courts, I'm SORRY that you THINK you are so intelligent... WE HAVE tried to silence them, Snyder v Phelps... go have a read. You refuse to offer anything BUT hateful commentary. You offer no solutions, only insults and abuse against the very people YOU want to do your bidding. Just because YOU demand something, doesn't mean its going to happen.

I've hated these people since the first day I met them, I have never changed my position on hating them, never once. I hate them with every fiber in my being, yet, what they are doing is legal. and until individuals like you realize it and find a solution then it WILL be legal.

[Puck]

You two need to chill and take a breather. This thread isn't even about their right to free speech, it is about them being recognized as a hate group, which honestly, should have happened a long time ago.

[Cybran]

They are trolls. They thrive on the media attention. Leave them alone and they will lose interest or let some of the bikers beat them up.

[PizzaSHARK]

To a lesser degree, the same logic applies to WBC. They should NOT have the right to free speech because they do not deserve it. Plain and simple.

I don't like black people. I don't like how they talk, I don't like the way they talk, I don't like the things they do or the things they talk about. Therefore, they should NOT have the right to free speech because they do not deserve it. Plain and simple.

[Maxwelll4112]

In all seriousness I can only enjoy a protest from them is they chant "Lol your kid is dead" Otherwise theyre a bunch of lowlifes with no appeal. They need to be more insane to get the funny vote.