Quote :

"Raleigh, N.C. — A Kansas church famous for its anti-homosexual protests at funerals plans to protest at the Saturday funeral of Elizabeth Edwards, the estranged wife of two-time Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. The Westboro Baptist Church plans to protest for 45 minutes before the funeral set for 1 p.m. at Edenton Street United Methodist Church in downtown Raleigh, according to the church's website. The Westboro church website throws invective at Edwards but gives no specific reason why they chose to protest her funeral. The Topeka, Kansas, church is well known for holding anti-homosexual protests at funerals, often at those of soldiers. The church, which is not affiliated with any larger Baptist group, is led by Fred Phelps and mostly attended by his family members. Edwards, 61, died Tuesday at her Chapel Hill home after a six-year battle with breast cancer. She was first diagnosed with cancer in the waning days of the 2004 presidential campaign, when John Edwards, who was then a U.S. senator from North Carolina, was the Democratic nominee for vice president. The couple didn't disclose her illness until after the election. The cancer went into remission after surgery and months of treatment, but it resurfaced in early 2007, as John Edwards was mounting a second run at the White House. The Edwardses agreed at the time that they wouldn't allow the cancer to derail his candidacy. Because the cancer had moved into her bones, her doctors said at that time that it was no longer curable but could be treated. Doctors recently informed Edwards that the cancer had spread and recommended that she stop treatment. Edwards is survived by her husband, daughters Cate and Emma Claire and son Jack. After the funeral, she will be buried in a private service at Oakwood Cemetery in Raleigh, next to her oldest son, Wade. He died at age 16 in 1996 when his Jeep overturned as he was driving from the family's home in Raleigh to their beach house on Figure Eight Island, near Wilmington. The family asked that people make donations to the Wade Edwards Foundation, which supports a computer lab for high school students in Raleigh."

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8749610/

I hope this city shows them just how unwelcome they are.

12/9/2010 9:55:32 AM

There are few people I can say I despise, but the Westboro people are some of them.

12/9/2010 10:02:48 AM

Where do these people get their travel budget from? I couldn't imagine them actually having real jobs or anything.

12/9/2010 10:05:42 AM

^iirc, it seems like many of the adults in the family are lawyers and they've won several lawsuits.

12/9/2010 10:08:13 AM

Quote :

"The Westboro church website throws invective at Edwards but gives no specific reason why they chose to protest her funeral."

Her husband cheated on her and you're going to protest her funeral???

12/9/2010 10:28:08 AM

wonder if Gary will be there?

12/9/2010 10:29:55 AM

Westboro does this purely for money. They have no motive other than money.

12/9/2010 10:35:25 AM

super soaker + cat urine ftw

12/9/2010 10:39:58 AM

12/9/2010 10:42:32 AM

In Tulsa people slashed their tires.
And then the tire shops in town all refused to help them.
lol
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20101114_11_A12_CUTLIN105145&allcom=1

12/9/2010 10:44:10 AM

^ That's awesome.

12/9/2010 10:44:55 AM

^^lol, nice.

12/9/2010 10:47:20 AM

I'd love to know how those tire shops were not breaking the law.

They were clearly denying service based on the religion of the potential customer.

Where is the outrage for the rights of these loons to get their tires serviced?

12/9/2010 10:52:38 AM

^store owners are well within their rights to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

12/9/2010 10:55:20 AM

If I was going to be here on Sat I'd definitely be there with water guns full of urine.

12/9/2010 10:57:50 AM

^^blacks?

12/9/2010 11:00:33 AM

^^^Yeah, in a just world, they would be. But they are not.

The Federal Civil Rights Act requires:

Quote :

""full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

If restaurants, bars, hotels, grocery stores, etc. are "public accommodations," then tire service shops and mechanics are too.

You cannot deny service based on religion, with a few very, very limited exceptions.

You people would be outraged if a mechanic denied service to members of a particular mosque, gay church, etc.....so where is your tolerance now?

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 11:03 AM. Reason : a]

12/9/2010 11:02:03 AM

Quote :

"They were clearly denying service based on the religion of the potential customer."

It seems to me they were denying service based on the potential customers being dicks.

12/9/2010 11:02:49 AM

When Fred Phelps finally dies that is going to be an awesome funeral.

The military veterans will have an impressive showing, but I'm betting the Gay Pride parade will be more hilarious.

12/9/2010 11:03:23 AM

^^ Agreed.
Those tire shops have serviced thousands of cars belonging to Baptists. Good luck arguing that they refused service because of your religion when you claim to be a popular sect.

^ Never thought of that, lol

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 11:05 AM. Reason : s]

12/9/2010 11:05:11 AM

I doubt all those people would sink to that level

12/9/2010 11:07:02 AM

You know what kind of shitstorm there would be if some mechanic did this to leaders of, say, an outspoken, protest-loving gay church in a town where they weren't welcome. People slash their tires, and then they get denied service, and this is all because of their professed beliefs and outspoken preaching/activism.

With the gay church, not one of you would say "well, it may not have actually been because of that church's religion, so good luck proving that."

No, you'd be howling for the federal behemoth to come squash that ant, and it would.

You change the level of evidence, and minimize the offense, because you hate the group. That's fine - just say it.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 11:10 AM. Reason : d]

12/9/2010 11:08:34 AM

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 11:19 AM. Reason : .]

12/9/2010 11:17:02 AM

Quote :

"Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of people. Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy their property, and/or to exclude others from doing these things.[1][2][3] Important widely recognized types of property include real property (land), personal property (physical possessions belonging to a person), private property (property owned by legal persons or business entities),..."

Edit: ^ is a law about private rights to exclude, V is about federal right to access laws.

Quote :

"In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members."

I know this is a little off topic, but I distinctly remembered private properties having the right to refuse service to anyone... And I think it's a little bullshit that they don't now. But I would definitely say that the refusal to serve the Westboro church members was arbitrary, so they were in violation of right to acces laws...

Which is bullshit.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 11:20 AM. Reason : ]

12/9/2010 11:17:15 AM

^^^ I don't understand your analogy. Is the protest-loving gay church disrupting a funeral service? If so, then I wouldn't have a problem with them being denied service.

I think a better analogy is:
Denying tire service to Muslims: WRONG
Denying tire service to the Taliban: AWESOME

It's not their religion at all. It's their actions.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 11:21 AM. Reason : .]

12/9/2010 11:20:37 AM

Quote :

"all the tire companies would have to do is make a case showing how they were worried about disruptions or fights at their place of business and they would be fine. "

Yes, and if the customer is from a preferred minority, that case is doomed to fail from the beginning. No matter how well-articulated or grounded in fact the case is, you will lose.

However, if it's a minority that doesn't have special rights or disingenuous white liberals on their side, you can do whatever you want to them and then any bullshit reason will fly with the law.

That's the problem.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 11:21 AM. Reason : s]

12/9/2010 11:21:02 AM

Quote :

"Yes, and if the customer is from a preferred minority, that case is doomed to fail from the beginning. No matter how well-articulated or grounded in fact the case is, you will lose. However, if it's a minority that doesn't have special rights or disingenuous white liberals on their side, you can do whatever you want to them and then any bullshit reason will fly with the law. "

this is patently false. you are well within your rights to deny someone service or entrance if they are wearing club patches or gang colors even if they happen to be from a protected minority, as made clear by the court case posted.

12/9/2010 11:23:49 AM

Quote :

"The military veterans will have an impressive showing, but I'm betting the Gay Pride parade will be more hilarious."

12/9/2010 11:24:01 AM

^^The gang was the Hessians Motorcycle Club.

White liberals don't mind denying their rights.

Make it the Nubian Motorcycle Alliance, with a white owner refusing service, and things change real fast. A black owner could probably get away with it.

12/9/2010 11:26:46 AM

^All you're looking at are the races, and not the information.

There are legit reasons to think a bunch of rough and tumble motorcycle gang members could start trouble with members of other gangs.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 11:28 AM. Reason : other gangs, not the same one]

12/9/2010 11:28:28 AM

Refusing them service was absolutely the right decision. I would have done the same with the Hessians and the WBC folks. That's not the point.

The point is the legal double-standard.

Do you deny that a white owner denying service to a black motorcycle gang, or an activist black church, or members of a radical mosque would face a far steeper hill in their legal battle?

If you deny that, then there isn't much else I can say.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 11:34 AM. Reason : a]

12/9/2010 11:32:48 AM

so you are saying that a black person has never been denied or service because of their dress or just that they have never filed a lawsuit? because if they did, and the owner of the business had a policy against certain dress because of fear of gang activity, they would lose the lawsuit provided that the owner of the business would otherwise serve them without the colors. it has nothing to do with belonging to a protected class. should be pretty clear.

12/9/2010 11:34:28 AM

Quote :

"Do you deny that a white owner denying service to a black motorcycle gang, or an activist black church, or members of a radical mosque would face a far steeper hill in their legal battle? "

I do disagree that they will have a steeper hill in their legal battle.

Now, fighting the possible bad press, or the NAACP, or some other retarded religious protection/advocacy group would possible be a totally different matter, depending on if it gets blown out of proportion.

12/9/2010 11:36:43 AM

Quote :

"I do disagree that they will have a steeper hill in their legal battle."

Well, then there is not much else I can say.

I really enjoyed Pollyanna, too.

12/9/2010 11:40:04 AM

Quote :

"Do you deny that a white owner denying service to a black motorcycle gang, or an activist black church, or members of a radical mosque would face a far steeper hill in their legal battle?"

A. White owner denying service to black gang
B. White owner denying service to white gang

C. Black owner denying service to white gang
D. Black owner denying service to black gang

The owners in examples A and C have tougher legal battles than B and D because they have to more clearly prove the service denial was gang-related and not racism.

Does owner A have a tougher legal battle than owner C? That's debatable. As mentioned earlier, involvement of groups like the NAACP change things, but overall I don't think the difficulty gap between A and C is very large compared to the difficulty gaps between A and B or C and D.

Regardless,
FUCK WBC. Funerals are not town hall debates or soap boxes.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 11:47 AM. Reason : .]

12/9/2010 11:46:55 AM

Tulip clearly doesn't understand the law.

12/9/2010 11:55:37 AM

Sure I do. Certain things increase the likelihood of a win or loss that have nothing to do with the law itself. Enforcement is uneven, often arbitrary, and subject to the weaknesses of the humans within the system.

Juries in criminal trials don't like black people, and judges in discrimination cases do.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 12:10 PM. Reason : a]

12/9/2010 12:09:51 PM

You are posting nothing other than pure bullshit.

12/9/2010 12:10:39 PM

Explain to me why WBC people don't have a right to public accommodation through the Civil Rights Act in this case.

Be careful, because you know whatever standard you use to deny them that right will cut in ways you don't like.

12/9/2010 12:12:38 PM

black people lose discrimination cases 86% of the time. i mean, if we are just making up shit now i figured i would trump your claim with my own.

12/9/2010 12:12:52 PM

Quote :

"Explain to me why WBC people don't have a right to public accommodation through the Civil Rights Act in this case. Be careful, because you know whatever standard you use to deny them that right will cut in ways you don't like."

Because they weren't denied access as a result of their religious beliefs. They were denied access due to their prior actions.

A white business owner would be well within his rights to deny access to services to a black gang, as the reason for denying said services is not because they are black, but because they are in a gang.


As for the WBC leave them alone. They have a long history of suing people who confront them at their protests. It's how they maintain their funding structure.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 12:20 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 12:22 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2010 12:19:45 PM

Quote :

"Because they weren't denied access as a result of their religious beliefs. They were denied access due to their prior actions."

Their "prior actions" were entirely made up of religious activism, religious preaching and religious protests....all formally done as an activity of their church.

You are making the one denied service prove there was discrimination. With other groups, the illegal discrimination is assumed until the owner can show a justifiable reason to deny service.

12/9/2010 12:26:52 PM

one of your mistakes is equating the court of public opinion with the court of law

12/9/2010 12:28:37 PM

Quote :

"Their "prior actions" were entirely made up of religious activism, religious preaching and religious protests....all formally done as an activity of their church. "

The religious protections covers religious beliefs, not actions.

Quote :

"You are making the one denied service prove there was discrimination. "

Because that is the way the law works. If I claim you are a pedophile, it is incumbent upon me to prove that claim, not for your to prove you aren't.

Quote :

"With other groups, the illegal discrimination is assumed until the owner can show a justifiable reason to deny service."

Again, you are making shit up.

12/9/2010 12:29:58 PM

Quote :

"Because that is the way the law works. If I claim you are a pedophile, it is incumbent upon me to prove that claim, not for your to prove you aren't."

That is NOT the way the law always works. With self-defense situations, the burden of proof is on the victim who defended himself to prove that killing his assailant was justified. The prosecution does not have to prove that it was unjustified. Many areas of law are like this. This is one.

If you refuse service, and you are called on it legally, it is 100% on you to show that you had a good, justifiable, legal reason to do it.

Quote :

"The religious protections covers religious beliefs, not actions."

LOL. If there are not actions with the beliefs, then nobody would ever know your beliefs, and therefore you could not be discriminated against. Because nobody would know.

"Your honor, I didn't deny service to all members of XYZ Rainbow Church because of their beliefs or acceptance of homosexuality.....I denied them service because I found their protests in favor of gay rights to be very rude and in poor taste."

Let me know how that goes.


[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 12:38 PM. Reason : s]

12/9/2010 12:35:57 PM

Quote :

"With self-defense situations, the burden of proof is on the victim who defended himself to prove that killing his assailant was justified. "

Man you've got this ass fuckin backwards

12/9/2010 12:40:07 PM

Quote :

"With self-defense situations, the burden of proof is on the victim who defended himself to prove that killing his assailant was justified. The prosecution does not have to prove that it was unjustified. Many areas of law are like this. This is one. "

Wrong. The prosecution needs to prove that the defendant unjustifiably murdered a guy. the defense just has to make a good argument that they legitimately thought they were in danger, no proof is required on the part of the defense.

12/9/2010 12:43:39 PM

I don't think the mechanics gave a shit if the WBC protests were pro-gay, anti-gay, pro-skub, anti-skub.

It's not some blanket denial of service based on religious beliefs. It's a refusal to cater to people who caused a disturbance at a community member's funeral.

If the WBC people were just passing through a random town and were denied service only because they were member of the WBC, they might have a case. But this example is refusal to give service to people who caused trouble at a friend's funeral. The fact that they were causing trouble as a result of their religious beliefs is beside the point.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 12:53 PM. Reason : skub]

12/9/2010 12:45:41 PM

^^ Exactly. Innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor has to prove you broke the law.

You seem to have a very skewed view of the world Tulip.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 12:51 PM. Reason : s]

12/9/2010 12:50:50 PM

^^ I like this post the best. Their WBC membership is coincidental.

Public disturbance.

12/9/2010 12:51:33 PM