Anti-Gay Church May Soon be Homeless. Cry me a fucking river for Fred Phelps.

[Ian David]

Anti-Gay Church May Soon be Homeless
by Kilian Melloy
EDGE Contributor
Monday Apr 7, 2008

The church and office building of the anti-gay Baptist Church presided over by Fred Phelps may be taken and sold to satisfy a lawsuit against the church if the suit’s appeal affirms a $5 million award.

Westboro Baptist Church has a small congregation comprised mostly of Phelps’ extended family, several of whom are lawyers. The $5 million sum was levied against the church following a lawsuit brought by the family of a fallen U.S. soldier killed in Iraq.

The church’s members are known for picketing the funerals of gays. More recently, they have begun picketing the funerals of American troops killed in the Iraq war. Picketing members often carry signs with messages such as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates America," reported CNN.com last October when the ruling was made.

In their defense at the trial, church members claimed that picketing funerals and displaying such messages is an act of faith based on their belief that God is punishing America for its legal and social tolerance of GLBT people.

http://www.edgeboston.com/edge_viewimage_story.php?id=72695

More:
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=72695

[Chulanowa]

1. Doesn't the scripture talk about reaping what you sow?

I think the Phelps Felchers have a long way to go before they finish harvesting this particular field.

[Bluzmann57]

2. Yeah!

Bring 'em down. Phelps and his clan are nothing but walking talking garbage. $5 million won't bring that family's loved one back, but at least it may lead to the demise of these freaks.

[niyad]

3. may their next home be suitable for them-- I was thinking cardboard boxes, or

rat-infested basements (sorry, rats)

[IntravenousDemilo]

4. Westboro Baptist Church will never be homeless...

...as long as there are shrunken, black, godless hearts for it to live in.

[MuseRider]

5. Oh how I wish

that Kansas Equality Coalition could afford one of those buildings. Would that not be perfect?

[damntexdem]

6. LOL! Not today, Phred!

Not just anti-gay *("God hates fags" is his main website) but anti-American ("God hates America" is his other website). And to think -- his zipcode starts 666.

[MuseRider]

7. It does and

isn't that appropriate? Mine was also 666 until I moved. I was really happy to be rid of that zipcode.

My friend had a group that stood opposite Fred with the signs Not Today Fred after 9/11.

[Ian David]

8. And Swedes! God also apparently hates Swedes, too. n/t

[kdpeters]

9. I have a hard time not seeing this as a free speech issue.

Once we give up some of our rights to the powers that be, we don't ever get them back without a fight. It seems to me that no one can ever protest another funeral ever again, not even the Phelps. Have they taken away from me my right to celebrate Fred Phelps' death at his own funeral? If so, I'm not terribly happy about that. If not, I really need to hear some reassurances that this ruling doesn't impact my own first amendment rights in any way.

If anyone else has considered that there are some first amendment issues in this ruling and still feels confident that this is a fair ruling, I really would appreciate hearing that perspective. I'm not at all comfortable with this news as much as I wish I could be.

[mondo joe]

11. Phelps' church was sued by a private citizen for damages they caused.

There was no government infringement of free speech.

Churches are no more free to cause damages without risk of penalty than they are free to murder or steal.

[kdpeters]

13. I understand that was the rationale, but I'm not clear on where the line was drawn

where the right so free speech became damages violating someone else's rights. What were the specific damages? I found the text of the complaint online, http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/pi/snyderwbc22307acmp.pdf , and read the entire thing. In the items where the complaint was explicit about the speech in question, e.g. 19,20,24,27, I found offensive speech, not damaging speech. In the items they allege actions trespassing on the plaintiff's rights, e.g. 30. defamation, 42,47 invasion of privacy, 55. ongoing physical/emotional damage, I find no details of what that was.

Reading this article, http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bt/prv/20080212/20080212_snyder.html, the judge seems to be implying that bereaved loved ones have a right to a period of bereavement without hearing offensive speech. That makes sense to me, and I can sort of accept that, but I think it does indeed mean that the Phelps have a right to a period of bereavement meaning none of their victims can return the treatment. So be it. I can live with that if it puts a stop to them doing it do innocent folks during their grief. Still, I can't help feeling uneasy about not knowing exactly where the lines are drawn.

[mondo joe]

14. The specific damages were intentional emotional distress.

The Snyder family showed they suffered real emotional distress, demonstrated in their testimony and backed up by physicians.

Phelps' defense was that the Snyder son was a PUBLIC figure by merit of having an obituary in the news, making him subject to public interest. This was, however, a ridiculous defense.

Even Phelps's own defense wasn't that this was simply offensive - they had to resort to a sham argument about the son being a public figure.

The lines will be drawn differently across the board as they depend on state torts.

[kdpeters]

15. I think I'm starting to get it.

Trust me, I've wanted to feel good about this decision.

Phelps' defense was that the Snyder son was a PUBLIC figure by merit of having an obituary in the news, making him subject to public interest. This was, however, a ridiculous defense.

Agreed. Posting a public announcement doesn't offer up private citizens to unbridled exploitation. Yet, by Phelps own defense, he suggests that public figures are in no way entitled to those considerations which I think is a good thing. Phelps himself, can't argue, that he isn't a public figure. I guess the private vs. public makes all the difference. I get that and i can feel good about that line drawn. Private citizens should be entitled to damages when their privacy is invaded and exploited during a time of breavement.

[canis_lupus]

10. Here's hoping the Phelps' clan next signs

... won't read "God Hates Fags," but will say something like "Will spew homophobic bile for food" and they hold it up under a highway overpass instead of at a funeral.

I don't view Phelps' protest as First Amendment/free speech issues at all. It's more a matter of drawing a line that people like Phelps can't cross without infringing on simple human decency.

[swimmernsecretsea]

12. Here's another religious concept for you, Fred Phelps. Karma. It's a bitch, init?

Here's an assignment. Atone for all the people who you've offended, then we'll talk. Start your list....now.