US Supreme Court Rules Against Anti-Gay Westboro Baptist Church Pastor

[Are_grits_groceries]

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week affirmed the Casper, Wyoming City counsels decision not to allow anti-gay pastor Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas to place an anti-gay monument in one of it’s city parks, when the justices unanimously agreed Wednesday that governments receiving monument donations for public parks are not compelled to take everything they are offered.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/frontPage.do

Evil!!

[Ohio Joe]

1. Are you shitting me... jesus h tap dancin christ thats evil

There should be no doubt in anyones mind that this is a hate group and should be prosecuted as such.

[paulsby]

9. there is no such crime as

"being a hate group"

promoting hatred is legal in the USA, unlike say canada (section 319 )

there are lots of hate groups in the USA. you have to prove a lot more than merely promoting hatred in order for there to be a crime.

you are free to go down to a local public place like a city park, and get on your soapbox and start spouting hate. not a crime

[Mudoria]

2. Sometimes you wonder if the Reverend Phelps

doesn't have "Haggard" syndrome and all his anti-gay hatred is really self-hatred....

[Bill McBlueState]

6. why would you wonder that? n/t

[roguevalley]

14. apparently phelps was a switch hitter in his youth. self loathing is his

current state of mind. google it. its out there.

[rrneck]

3. History is littered

with assholes like that. He'd be burning people alive if he could.

[old mark]

4. I am amazed no one has killed him. nt

[spanone]

5. sick motherfucker...sick...phelps is an abomination

[FreeState]

7. I dont believe in Hell

but there are things and times in life when I wish I did. This is one of those times.

[crimsonblue]

8. Westboro has every right to make these disgusting monuments

and they have the right to put their monuments on privately held land, but the government may censor its own speech, as taking ownership or receivership is an expression of the government's speech. As long as the government does not violate a person's 1st Amendment right by denying the person their freedom of expression, and as long as the government does violate the establishment clause by quasi supporting a particular religion, the government is not restricted in its abilities to self-censor itself.

[paulsby]

10. yes

the phelps side claimed that since govt. takes allegedly religious tokens like the 10 commandments and posts them on public property, that it cannot do content discrimination and pick and choose only those that it agrees with, so to speak.

the court ruled against him.

[crimsonblue]

11. The recent Summumm lawsuit cleared that up.

In that SCOTUS ruling, the court found that a city display religious monuments if they have an inherent historical value, and that the city, by taking ownership is using its freedom of expression. However, the city, like every private citizen, has the ability and prerogative to censor itself, so it may deny requests to put up monuments that naturally become an extensive of its expression.

[paulsby]

12. yes

i was reading about that lawsuit the other day at volokh.

[CTyankee]

13. In New Haven, we have the city's Green governed by

the "Proprietors of the Common and Undivided Lands of New Haven" which was established by our Puritan forebears to decide what went on there. there are 5 proprietors; they are appointed by other members for life from among the city's most distinguished citizens.

In 1989, on the occasion of the 350th anniversary of the founding of the Green,there was to be a big celebration and several of us in the reproductive health community lobbied to have condoms distributed on the Green along with our educational material. Our spokesperson was a fiery 75 year old lady to whom the proprietors could not say no. We distributed the condoms and the Republic did not totter.

I love New England...