Uh oh, South Dakota is banning more "civil liberties" - Page 4




 
--
Boots
 
March 31st, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Phelps and his followers contend the deaths are God's vengeance for the U.S. harboring homosexuals and their protests are a form of religious expression. For years, Phelps and his followers protested funerals of AIDS victims but have shifted to soldiers.
Wow, they aren't protesting the war? Just the fact that the US "harbors" homosexuals. Are they implying that the military is full of homosexuals? Or are they just wanting to get attention? Seems to me it is the latter rather than any of the former.

As for infringing the rights of people and the constitution:

It is restricting them to a distance and a time frame. No one says they can not demonstrate. No one says they can not picket. No one says they can not use a bullhorn (although I hope noise ordinance laws would help with that), no one says they can not take out ads, no one says they can not speak their mind(s). No one says anything about that at all. Of course this is a biased opinion, if you compare it to my replies on the 2nd amendment thread, one could even say it was hypocritical. So call me a hypocrite.

I feel this is a needed amendment or bill or whatever they decide to call it. Put yourself in the shoes of the grievers. If you were at your (insert relation here) funeral and you saw a bunch of people picketing the funeral, shouting and making obscene gestures and whatever else they happen to do, what would YOUR reaction be? In all seriousness, think about it before giving a response.

These people are targeting families that have lost loved ones. They don't need any more harassment or aggravation than they already have. This is a firm and fair law and I would support it 110% whether it infringes the absolute interpretation of the 1st amendment or not.

The people in the funeral are having some of their basic "human rights" violated. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html Art 19 applies to the demonstrators but Article 30 takes that right back away from them. Read the various articles and tell me where the people at the funeral have to tolerate this kind of affront.

Granted I do not know what (if any) of these are legal or otherwise enforceable by law. But doesn't it make a sort of sense?

By the way, take a good look at the pictures of the signs they are holding. Read what it says. These are the types of people this bill is aimed at, these are the types of people that make life a pain in the butt for the average American.
March 31st, 2006  
PJ24
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marinerhodes
So call me a hypocrite.
Okay. Hypocrite. Now what?

Good post, I agree 110%! These people, to me, are no better than groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Nation of Islam, etc that we have in this country. They have no point, and their agenda is 'hate.'

Since when is harassment a right, anyway? These "protests" seem more like harassment than anything else.

I would be fine if they banned them from doing it altogether.
March 31st, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ24
Okay. Hypocrite. Now what?

Good post, I agree 110%! These people, to me, are no better than groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Nation of Islam, etc that we have in this country. They have no point, and their agenda is 'hate.'

Since when is harassment a right, anyway? These "protests" seem more like harassment than anything else.

I would be fine if they banned them from doing it altogether.
Sorry I edited some right after you posted. Reread and see if you still agree or have anything to add.
--
Boots
March 31st, 2006  
Missileer
 
 
Most cemetatries in big cities are privately owned and they can remove anyone that's a trespasser.
March 31st, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
Most cemetatries in big cities are privately owned and they can remove anyone that's a trespasser.
Unfortunately these people are not on the property. They are on the sidewalks or streets just outside the cemetaries.
March 31st, 2006  
Missileer
 
 
Well, I guess that's it then. Bring out the claymore mines.
March 31st, 2006  
PJ24
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marinerhodes
The people in the funeral are having some of their basic "human rights" violated. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html Art 19 applies to the demonstrators but Article 30 takes that right back away from them. Read the various articles and tell me where the people at the funeral have to tolerate this kind of affront.

Granted I do not know what (if any) of these are legal or otherwise enforceable by law. But doesn't it make a sort of sense?
The only problem I have with that is that it's a UN mandate and I am very anti-outside governance and influence when it pertains to the Constitution.

If we were going with this, though. I would that that the below article would pretty much limit the protesters.

Art. 29 (2)
Quote:
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
I think these people just want attention, and negative attention is better than none. It is too bad they're making these families suffer for their idiocy.
April 1st, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
I can see your point about outside governance but look at the ACLU and the impact they have on American society as a whole. The ACLU is not an official part of the US government as far as I know but they do have a huge impact on federal and state policies. They can pretty much dictate what is and is not considered an innate "human right". I wonder where they get their ideals from? If there is a document or charter that they live/act by.
April 1st, 2006  
PJ24
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marinerhodes
I can see your point about outside governance but look at the ACLU and the impact they have on American society as a whole. The ACLU is not an official part of the US government as far as I know but they do have a huge impact on federal and state policies. They can pretty much dictate what is and is not considered an innate "human right". I wonder where they get their ideals from? If there is a document or charter that they live/act by.
They don't make the laws though. They take what laws we have, and twist them to suit their agenda. They can't govern, all they can do is throw a fit when some criminal gets his just desserts and try to punish law abiding citizens. The Courts are just as much to blame for some of the ACLUs "wins" as they are.
April 2nd, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ24
They don't make the laws though. They take what laws we have, and twist them to suit their agenda. They can't govern, all they can do is throw a fit when some criminal gets his just desserts and try to punish law abiding citizens. The Courts are just as much to blame for some of the ACLUs "wins" as they are.
Exactly my point. Without the pressure of the ACLU and other agencies of their ilk I doubt the laws and judgements would be so generous towards criminals as they are and have been. Take criminal A for example. He makes on average 30k a year. How can he afford a $1000 an hr lawyer? He gets supported by the ACLU for some perceived transgression against his human rights. He gets off or gets a lesser sentence when the ACLU comes into play. Take it to the extreme and take it to the best case. Political pressure and peer pressure is a bit*h.