Westboro Church fined!

**Midee1** · 11-01-2007, 07:38 AM

BALTIMORE, Maryland (AP) -- A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals in the belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

Albert Snyder of York, Pennsylvania, sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.

The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned later in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/31/fun...index.html

**Beef** · 11-01-2007, 08:12 AM

They deserve it. What they do to these families is horrible. The only sad thing is, the church doesn't have the money to cover the fine. Might stop these people, might not.

**Midee1** · 11-01-2007, 08:24 AM

Beef Wrote:They deserve it. What they do to these families is horrible. The only sad thing is, the church doesn't have the money to cover the fine. Might stop these people, might not.

We could only get so lucky that the fine may cause them to have to disband their church and go away. I am sure Phelps will continue to be the idiot he is but hopefully with less of a following.

**thecavemaster** · 11-01-2007, 04:45 PM

Seen a church fire lately? (just kidding)...

**blitz43** · (This post was last modified: 11-14-2007, 01:41 PM by blitz43.)

They tried to do that here in Powell Co. last year, only to meet a whole lot of loving friends & familiy of the deceased. The community wouldn't even let them get near the church!

**vundy33** · 11-14-2007, 02:58 PM

I have talked to the leader and his wife of this church on the phone...they're some crazy people. I think the phone numbers are posted on the site if anyone wants to look them up...lol

#1ukfan · 11-26-2007, 08:43 PM

Calling themselves a church is hardly relvent. I don't think that God want his church to protest at innocent people's funerals.

~~ronald_reagan~~ · 11-28-2007, 02:01 AM

this is one time that i have to side with that which i disagree with personally... the 1st amendment allows for such action. are these people scum? absolutely! are they wrong in the eyes of the law? no.

i think these people have the right to do what they're doing. but we also have the right to 'fix' the problem by staging protests against these groups. we could do it in a variety of ways..... we could protest their 'services'.... protest their activism... ect

but to squelch them out via legislation or through the judicial system is IMO a violation of our founder intentions...

if you disagree with me, thats fine. this is a very emotional issue. and its understandable why/how it happens...

**vundy33** · 11-28-2007, 02:40 AM

I hope all of them burn in ****...

~~ronald_reagan~~ · 11-28-2007, 02:49 AM

vundy33 Wrote:I hope all of them burn in ****...

me too!!! lol

i just think that our rule of law and us being a nation built upon that, requires us to allow it...

maybe i make sense? maybe i don't?

its a very personal issue that we all need to ask for the almighty's support and blessings...

Quando · 11-28-2007, 03:01 AM

What about the families rights?

**Beef** · 11-28-2007, 03:35 AM

Quando Wrote:What about the families rights?

Not sure about this, but where are these rights covered in the Constitution? I mean all these people are doing is protesting which is covered in the 1st Amendment. I totally disagree with what they do and stand for, but Regan makes a good point on this issue.

~~ronald_reagan~~ · 11-28-2007, 03:50 AM

Beef Wrote:Not sure about this, but where are these rights covered in the Constitution? I mean all these people are doing is protesting which is covered in the 1st Amendment. I totally disagree with what they do and stand for, but Regan makes a good point on this issue.

beef understands.........

thanks your support.

**ComfortEagle** · 11-28-2007, 04:01 AM

It's invasion of privacy and intention to promote emotional harm.

The right to privacy is not a directly stated constitutional right, but Supreme Court decisions have declared it a basic human right.

~~ronald_reagan~~ · 11-28-2007, 12:41 PM

ComfortEagle Wrote:It's invasion of privacy and intention to promote emotional harm.

The right to privacy is not a directly stated constitutional right, but Supreme Court decisions have declared it a basic human right.

The right to privacy spoken of in supreme court decisions, protects people from the governments intrusion. Not person to person. The 1st amendment protects what these people do. Not the 14th amendment as you imply.

**ComfortEagle** · 11-28-2007, 09:30 PM

ronald_reagan Wrote:The right to privacy spoken of in supreme court decisions, protects people from the governments intrusion. Not person to person. The 1st amendment protects what these people do. Not the 14th amendment as you imply.

There are more rights than what are listed in the Constitution, via the 9th amendment.

Obviously the judge in the above case sees that it's an invasion of privacy.

~~ronald_reagan~~ · 11-28-2007, 11:49 PM

ComfortEagle Wrote:There are more rights than what are listed in the Constitution, via the 9th amendment.

Obviously the judge in the above case sees that it's an invasion of privacy.

You're right. He does. So do I.

Laws can be made, as they are currently existing, that protect person to person privacy issues. The constitution doesn't mandate it. That was my point. I agree with you on this in a sense. Its an invasion of privacy, but not because the constitution says so. The constitituion protects us from the government, not the people. I can personally deny you the right to own a gun, by not selling it to you. The government can't do that. I can personally kick you out of a church for not following the rules, the government can't.

I think we're running in circles. Agreeing, but on different issues somehow.