“god hates fags” church loses lawsuit

as much as it makes me nervous to see a church getting sued, i have to say i am thrilled to see these idiots get slammed with an 11 million dollar settlement in a legal case against them.

11 thoughts on ““god hates fags” church loses lawsuit”

  1. i think justice was served, but it is a bit scary in our politcally correct society. i am no right wing worry wart, but i don’t think you have to be to get worried when a church gets sued and loses.

  2. Yeah these guys did a protest here a while back when a soldier died. The kid who died was one of our students from a local high school. When Phelps showed up, it was like they were almost expecting him and his fam. What was cool was that the “bikers for God” people heard of the news and ganged up together and put their bikes outside the church.. when the family brought the body out to take to the cemetary, the bikers revved their bikes so no one could hear the protesters.. Furthermore, a bunch of college kids got sheets and pretty much held them up over the protest.

    it was kinda cool..

    Anways.. them being sued for 11 million is kinda cooler.

  3. As a kansas, I love hearing about this. This guy…ah, don’t get me started. The crappy part is that it’ll be appealled and won’t ever pass because of freedom of speech. it is nice to see a judge make a statement.

  4. while i sit here and hope that i am not judged by the actions of these bafoons, i cant help but wonder if i judge other lifestyles or group by their extreme ends as well. pause for thought…

  5. I’m not comfortable with this precedence at all. I am comfortable with the punishment being meted out. I would disagree with Ken, though. In our culture today, I’m placing bets that the appeal does get shot down, and the ruling stands. That’s what scares me. Will a legitimate protest then get shot down because somebody is offended? I wish there was some other reason to use that wouldn’t set some sort of precedence against free speech by Christians.

  6. i dont think free speech gives you the right to say what you want, when you want to. i dont believe that was its intention. i know folks feel this is a black eye for religious free speech. i would only challenge that because i think it is a black eye for hate speech disguised in religious rhetoric.


  7. The thing to remember is that this was a civil case, not a criminal case. The standard of proof is much lower in a civil case. Remember OJ – he was not guilty criminally, but he was found guilty civilly. The same sort of standards will apply here.

    Now, if there were a procedural issue by which WBC wants to appeal, such as an irregularity in the courtroom process, or on the severity of the penalty, that might fly on appeal. But I don’t see the actual decision being overturned.

  8. One more thing, while I am too uncomfortable when a church is sued, this decision does not cause me the least discomfort. I long ago in my head realized that the WBC is not a church, but is a cult. Fred Phelps has more in common with David Koresh than he does with any the most fundamentalist pastors that I know. Maybe I’m wrong, and the congregation is just overflowing with love and grace in all areas except this one, but given the way that they go about protesting their one “issue”, I’m not holding my breath.

  9. Cult is the PERFECT word. And let me be clear, I would love it if it weren’t overturned. How do you get past the freedom of speech issue?

  10. There is an assumption (wrongly) on the part of many people in this country that “Freedom of Speech” is inviolate. It isn’t, not by a long stretch. There are plenty of rules against slander, incitement to riot, abuse, etc. I have not been able to find a copy of the decision yet, but the rhetoric that comes from the WBC camp violates many of the restrictions placed upon “free speech”.

    The one thing that should be clear is this is not a decision over everything that Phelps and the WBC has said. Statements on their website were excluded from the decision process, as those were determined to be #1 – within the bounds of free speech, and #2 – unlikely to be taken seriously. However, the protest outside of the funeral was determined to be of a different animal, as it created a distinct hostile and abusive atmosphere for the family. It was not generalities about a class of citizens, or even specifics about a single person from a distance. The rhetoric was specific and immediate.

    Sure, the possibility remains that it could be overturned. Stranger things have happened. But given the specific boundaries of the lawsuit and subsequent decision, I doubt that we’ll see that happen.

Leave a Reply