Burn in Hell ACLU? ACLU hates fags?



Chance3290

New Member
Oct 1, 2004
621
0
0
http://www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060314/OPINION01/603140326/1014

It seems that there's this fella in Topeka, Kansas named Fred Phelps and Fred says he's a minister. Now Fred's got more than a dozen kids, and they each have several kids. This brood travels throughout the US and they attend funerals. Most of the funerals are for service men and women who have died in Afghanistan or Iraq, but they also showed up at the funeral for Coretta Scott King.
These people hold up signs that say: "GOD HATES FAGS!" "SMELL THE BRIMSTONE" "THANK GOD FOR IEDS"
These people do this because they feel that GOD is punishing the US for supporting gay causes.
Several states have, in record time, written and passed laws that make these protests illegal in cemetaries and at funerals.
The aclu says they are against these new laws because in interferes with Fred's freedom of speech.
So, if I got this right, the aclu will protest to support gay rights. AND they will protest to support the people who want all the gays to die and burn in hell.
I know what someone will say; "The aclu doesn't support fred, they just support his right to say these things." Interesting philosophy.
 
Chance3290 said:
I know what someone will say; "The aclu doesn't support fred, they just support his right to say these things." Interesting philosophy.
I am not a big fan (or even small fan) of the ACLU in general and certainly not a fan of Fred and the sheer lunacy he has somehow invoked in his friends and family, but I find no contradiction in the ACLU's stance on this issue (at least as you've described - I've done no research on this on my own but am familiar with crazy-Fred's group). What you call an "interesting philosophy" seems to be exactly what the 1st amendment mandates. Nothing disturbing here to me except for Fred's ideas and his ability to convince others of the same.

edit: I should add that I *am* a fan of the recent laws that prohibit these crazies from disrupting funeral services.
 
roadhog said:
I am not a big fan (or even small fan) of the ACLU in general and certainly not a fan of Fred and the sheer lunacy he has somehow invoked in his friends and family, but I find no contradiction in the ACLU's stance on this issue (at least as you've described - I've done no research on this on my own but am familiar with crazy-Fred's group). What you call an "interesting philosophy" seems to be exactly what the 1st amendment mandates. Nothing disturbing here to me except for Fred's ideas and his ability to convince others of the same.

edit: I should add that I *am* a fan of the recent laws that prohibit these crazies from disrupting funeral services.
There were a group of Bikers.[Harley riding kind} that went to the funerals to ensure that Fred did not get too close to the family.
 
wolfix said:
There were a group of Bikers.[Harley riding kind} that went to the funerals to ensure that Fred did not get too close to the family.
Yup, it was because of these bikers, and the Coretta Scott funeral, that these people started getting more attention.

I fully understand the freedom of speech issue. I support someone's right to protest the war, gay rights, abortion, ect (both pro and con). But to do so at a funeral or cemetary, and then have the aclu say that this should be allowed? And have them say that these new laws violate the rights of these people?
 
wolfix said:
There were a group of Bikers.[Harley riding kind} that went to the funerals to ensure that Fred did not get too close to the family.
I heard about that too. Seems to be one of the most active biker movements in quite a while. Good for them.
 
Chance3290 said:
Yup, it was because of these bikers, and the Coretta Scott funeral, that these people started getting more attention.

I fully understand the freedom of speech issue. I support someone's right to protest the war, gay rights, abortion, ect (both pro and con). But to do so at a funeral or cemetary, and then have the aclu say that this should be allowed? And have them say that these new laws violate the rights of these people?
I do understand a little bit I guess. I mean even in my own opinions on this there is a contradiction of sorts. On the one hand, I completely understand that they (the crazies) have their free speech rights and I think they should keep them. Then on the other hand I completely support the laws that have just been put in place to stop them from disrupting services. So I do have a contradiction myself. So maybe I'm not so credible on this issue after all...:confused:
 
roadhog said:
I do understand a little bit I guess. I mean even in my own opinions on this there is a contradiction of sorts. On the one hand, I completely understand that they (the crazies) have their free speech rights and I think they should keep them. Then on the other hand I completely support the laws that have just been put in place to stop them from disrupting services. So I do have a contradiction myself. So maybe I'm not so credible on this issue after all...:confused:
Many of the defenders of both the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution seem to insist on
absolute freedoms.Absolute freedom can only exist in a state of anarchy.Freedom is always relative.Every law is a restriction on freedom and all civilised societies accept this.No sane person,for example,could argue in favour of certain kinds of pornography being freely available.These nutcases can have the freedom to express their offensive opinions elsewhere.
The First Amendment has been used by every colour in the political spectrum to justify their right to self expression.Many of them are offensive to some people and some of them are offensive to many people.That's the price of civilisation.
Australia has nothing like the First Amendment and I don't believe that our freedom has suffered to any great degree as a result.In some respects we have more freedoms than the US,in others we have less.Every country is obviously different in what their citizens are prepared to trade off.
Disrupting a funeral is not self-expression.Perhaps the First Amendment needs further amendment.
Motor-cycle gangs are a poor substitute for an effective and sensible law.
Would any sane person allow motor-cycle gangs to be moral arbiters in any other area of social life?
 
stevebaby said:
Many of the defenders of both the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution seem to insist on
absolute freedoms.Absolute freedom can only exist in a state of anarchy.Freedom is always relative.Every law is a restriction on freedom and all civilised societies accept this.No sane person,for example,could argue in favour of certain kinds of pornography being freely available.These nutcases can have the freedom to express their offensive opinions elsewhere.
The First Amendment has been used by every colour in the political spectrum to justify their right to self expression.Many of them are offensive to some people and some of them are offensive to many people.That's the price of civilisation.
Australia has nothing like the First Amendment and I don't believe that our freedom has suffered to any great degree as a result.In some respects we have more freedoms than the US,in others we have less.Every country is obviously different in what their citizens are prepared to trade off.
Disrupting a funeral is not self-expression.Perhaps the First Amendment needs further amendment.
Motor-cycle gangs are a poor substitute for an effective and sensible law.
Would any sane person allow motor-cycle gangs to be moral arbiters in any other area of social life?
I am a card carrying member of the ACLU. They do things above and beyond the call of duty, believe me.
 
ptlwp said:
I am a card carrying member of the ACLU. They do things above and beyond the call of duty, believe me.
Yesterday, I heard a politician say something I actually agree with. He said that the aclu has a tendency to fight common sense legislation.

The aclu also has a tendency to only fight for certain rights. When the police and national guard were taking guns away from the New Orleans citizens, who legally owned the guns and were using them to guard their homes, the aclu was nowhere to be seen.

Again, interesting philosophy.
 
Chance3290 said:
Yesterday, I heard a politician say something I actually agree with. He said that the aclu has a tendency to fight common sense legislation.

The aclu also has a tendency to only fight for certain rights. When the police and national guard were taking guns away from the New Orleans citizens, who legally owned the guns and were using them to guard their homes, the aclu was nowhere to be seen.

Again, interesting philosophy.
Maybe not a soul asked for their help. They don't go into anything unless specifically requested, to my knowledge.

And they would even help a poor high school kid, if need be....
 
Chance3290 said:
Yesterday, I heard a politician say something I actually agree with. He said that the aclu has a tendency to fight common sense legislation.

The aclu also has a tendency to only fight for certain rights. When the police and national guard were taking guns away from the New Orleans citizens, who legally owned the guns and were using them to guard their homes, the aclu was nowhere to be seen.

Again, interesting philosophy.
as for common sense, one man's common sense is another man's tyranny, is it not?
 
ptlwp said:
Maybe not a soul asked for their help. They don't go into anything unless specifically requested, to my knowledge.

And they would even help a poor high school kid, if need be....
They were asked, even by some NO police officers who didn't like having the government taking guns from lawful citizens. (After all, that is the true meaning of the second amendment).

Explain to me how you support civil rights AND support the people who condemn and denigrate the funeral of the civil rights leader?

I know..."We don't support them, just their right to say it." Then you support the likes of ******. After all, he didn't just wake up one morning as chancellor of Germany with a full army, and decide to kill several million people that he didn't like. He started by talking to people and spreading his message. In other words, he used free speech.

We recently argued about child molesters. Will the aclu support the free speech right of a suspected child molester if he wants to stand in front of a grammar school and hand out kiddy ****?

There is right and wrong. And if you don't know the difference between common sense and tyranny, then you don't have common sense.
 
ptlwp said:
I am a card carrying member of the ACLU. They do things above and beyond the call of duty, believe me.
Ok ...... You are a member which means you donated a sum of money to their agenda. You made a statement that they go beyond the call of duty. I would like to know what they have done beyond the call of duty? They are very well paid lawyers supported by very wealthy individuals. Doing what they are paid for is not going beyond the call of duty. And they take on situations without being asked. And when examined real close, most of the cases they take on have a cash reward at the end......
What do they do beyond the call of duty?
 
i though as good capitalist citizens we would approve of personal gain being put before altruistic effort...


wolfix said:
Ok ...... . And when examined real close, most of the cases they take on have a cash reward at the end......
QUOTE]
 
Hypnospin said:
i though as good capitalist citizens we would approve of personal gain being put before altruistic effort...


wolfix said:
Ok ...... . And when examined real close, most of the cases they take on have a cash reward at the end......
QUOTE]
I don't have a problem with the ACLU making money to cover the overhead they have. But let's not call it beyond the call of duty as if they are doing because they are nice people. They have an agenda that I sometimes , but not always disagree with, and part of that agenda is the cash reward.
Part of the problem I have is the picking and choosing of the cases they handle. In recent years they have had a fallout of state members resigning because of this. They are not about just civil liberties, they are about cases that have a high profile to keep the money rolling.
Recently they had a resignation of the head guy because he thought they are getting too radical and not sticking to the agenda that they portray to the public.
 
All I am gonna say is that they (ACLU) helped a girlfriend and mine in high school, no money at all, and, yes, we did win our case.

They didn't get a cent, I can assure you.

Of course, I was in high school, sometime between the WWII and the Viet Nam War.

My information may be dated, as am I.
 
any info from a "child of the 70's" is far from dated.



ptlwp said:
All I am gonna say is that they (ACLU) helped a girlfriend and mine in high school, no money at all, and, yes, we did win our case.

They didn't get a cent, I can assure you.

Of course, I was in high school, sometime between the WWII and the Viet Nam War.

My information may be dated, as am I.
 
ptlwp said:
All I am gonna say is that they (ACLU) helped a girlfriend and mine in high school, no money at all, and, yes, we did win our case.
They didn't get a cent, I can assure you.
Of course, I was in high school, sometime between the WWII and the Viet Nam War.
My information may be dated, as am I.
I have a boss and a few people in the area that are aclu members. They are all shaking their heads at this, wondering if the aclu leadership has lost their minds.

When you mentioned the high school student, I thought you meant the kids from a couple of months ago. He wanted to wear shorts to school, the school said no, that was against their dress code policy. the kid said that, since girls were allowed to wear skirts, he should be allowed to wear shorts. The school said no. The aclu sued, on his behalf, so that he would be allowed to wear, not shorts, but skirts to school.
So now the school system has to spend money, not on educating our children, but to pay legal bills because some kid wants to wear shorty pants in school. Where do shorty pants in school fit into civil rights?
 
Chance3290 said:
I have a boss and a few people in the area that are aclu members. They are all shaking their heads at this, wondering if the aclu leadership has lost their minds.

When you mentioned the high school student, I thought you meant the kids from a couple of months ago. He wanted to wear shorts to school, the school said no, that was against their dress code policy. the kid said that, since girls were allowed to wear skirts, he should be allowed to wear shorts. The school said no. The aclu sued, on his behalf, so that he would be allowed to wear, not shorts, but skirts to school.
So now the school system has to spend money, not on educating our children, but to pay legal bills because some kid wants to wear shorty pants in school. Where do shorty pants in school fit into civil rights?
And education suffers in the school system. But the lawyers who brought this suit do not have a problem, because their children can afford to go to a private school.
I'm confused here.... The ACLU thinks that the individual who wants to wear shorts to school has the right to do so. However, the school does not have the right to deny that person his rights. The ACLU must think an individuals rights must supercede the rights of society. If they believe that, then why are they always backing afirmitive action...... Affirmative Action denies the rights to individuals that qualify for a position in order to enforce the rights of others that are percieved to be victimized by society. The ACLU's actions in these cases suggest that they put the rights of a larger part of society in front of an individuals rights.
What do they stand for???
Could it be that they are a bunch of lawyers who see a particular market for radical lawyerism that is really lucrative???
Are they really about civil rights or about power lunches on the membership money? Some of the leadership of the ACLU has suggested that....
Do you really want to trust a lawyer with your membership money? A lawyer who has no accountability to the memberships money?