| Raf 26.01.2008 12:09 |
link *EDIT* Copy and paste the address, as I don't think Queenzone is making it a proper link. Yeah, that site is owned by the Westboro Baptist Church. If you have some free time, you might find it amusing to actually message them and say some truths: link I know this is silly, but I was actually laughing while I asked them if they need homosexualism to be banned because they're afraid of feeling tempted to experiment it. |
| Ms. Rebel 26.01.2008 13:00 |
Those people are sick. No life at all, no brain....what a pity. I've send mail to them xD Einstein was right; "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity." |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 26.01.2008 13:57 |
It's a shame that these people breed, and breed that hatred into their children.... |
| Penetration_Guru 26.01.2008 14:24 |
What's the problem? I'm sure god is a non-smoker |
| @ndy38 26.01.2008 14:39 |
I think there's a counter-website at link Unfortunately, i think that's the most effective way of protesting against their website. They're insane.....i never heard of them until watching Louis Theroux's documentary, i was shocked to say the least! |
| rachael mae. 26.01.2008 16:31 |
I love WBC. They are so insane, it makes me laugh. xD |
| its_a_hard_life 26994 26.01.2008 16:49 |
I WILL SHOVE A ROCKET UP THEIR SONS ASSES. |
| Music Man 26.01.2008 17:21 |
A) Legally censoring these people would be an immoral abuse of justice. B) The website is their own private property. It would also be a miscarriage of justice to dictate what can and cannot be done with their property, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. In this case, it does not. C) Internet petitions are stupid and have never done anything in the entire history of their existence. |
| Lady Nyx 26.01.2008 20:35 |
really what needs to be done, is to punish the child who is throwing a tantrum, and put them in the corner until they shut up, by jus ignoring them. those people dont even know what theyre standing for anyway, theyre walking contradictions, and really, they should be laughed at more than anything, instead of us 'firing back the hate' cuz really...how would that make the rest of us better? if im not clear enough, i listen to shows taht invite her on, and theyll make fun of her and put her down and tell her shes terrible...where is that getting us? understandable to call them names and be passionatly against them. i am too. they are hate enablers, technically against themselves. but shes just someone who stands in her yard (that yard being america) and just shouts at it, not with it. she and her stupid little family are the only ones who really agree, and its due to her father, who probably brainwashed her. shes just following an example she was enstilled, and really is just a parrot (from what i understand). so she doesnt know what shes talking about, and has nothing to back her up. this cycle should be broken by not even letting them have the chance to show up as a protest (there needs to be a clause on the spread of hatred and the level of tactfulness done). i know people would say 'that would be against our rights' and technically, yes it would be to condemn them of their right of free speech and such. but people like these, who spread hatred and pain are a distress are crimes against humanity in its own right. sorry im ranting. really i just think people should ignore them. they might cry louder, but they just shouldnt even have the time of day to voice themselves (which they really arent, they arent trying to make things work, they talk at you, not with you, so they lose). they, like children will get tired from their tantrums and will fall asleep, eventually unnoticed, and life can go on. the more we fight them, the more we feed an unessesary beast. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 26.01.2008 21:34 |
Lady Nyx wrote: really i just think people should ignore them. they might cry louder, but they just shouldnt even have the time of day to voice themselves (which they really arent, they arent trying to make things work, they talk at you, not with you, so they lose). they, like children will get tired from their tantrums and will fall asleep, eventually unnoticed, and life can go on. the more we fight them, the more we feed an unessesary beast.In a perfect world... ...the media wouldn't send to press the plans of this group to picket funerals or memorials ...the media wouldn't give these people air time - how would we know about them in the first place if not for the media? ...the public wouldn't feed into the media frenzy and discuss these people, thereby giving them more power than they actually have ...funeral homes, cemetaries and such, would have their own crew of paid or volunteer 'shields' to protect grieving families from the taunts of these idiots In a perfect world, these people wouldn't be talked about outside of their own family, and perhaps they would indeed just fade away. But we don't live in a perfect world and so they'll continue to gain fame through fanaticism and we'll continue to shake our heads in disgust as we (definitely myself included) go on to read more and more about them. |
| Lady Nyx 26.01.2008 22:28 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:well, it continues my strong distaste for the media. as you said, the only thing it does good is it warns people about this group.Lady Nyx wrote: really i just think people should ignore them. they might cry louder, but they just shouldnt even have the time of day to voice themselves (which they really arent, they arent trying to make things work, they talk at you, not with you, so they lose). they, like children will get tired from their tantrums and will fall asleep, eventually unnoticed, and life can go on. the more we fight them, the more we feed an unessesary beast.In a perfect world... ...the media wouldn't send to press the plans of this group to picket funerals or memorials ...the media wouldn't give these people air time - how would we know about them in the first place if not for the media? ...the public wouldn't feed into the media frenzy and discuss these people, thereby giving them more power than they actually have ...funeral homes, cemetaries and such, would have their own crew of paid or volunteer 'shields' to protect grieving families from the taunts of these idiots In a perfect world, these people wouldn't be talked about outside of their own family, and perhaps they would indeed just fade away. But we don't live in a perfect world and so they'll continue to gain fame through fanaticism and we'll continue to shake our heads in disgust as we (definitely myself included) go on to read more and more about them. what im curious about is, how do they know these people who have passed are 'gay' or whatever it is they hate this week? (note taht im talking about pre-heath legdger). did they go thru people who have died recently and searched for their orientation or make assumptions? eventually these people will die out anyway. in the meantime we can growl about them all we want, but i still think now that people are aware of them, it (as you said in a perfect world) just stop being perpetuated. |
| john bodega 26.01.2008 22:37 |
Pass the URL onto 4chan. They're doing such a good job of making a laughing stock of Scientology, it seems they're the only one with balls enough to take up this kind of thing. Forget your petition. Online petitions are useless. |
| StoneColdClassicQueen 26.01.2008 22:46 |
Someone should send this to Brian May... I would love to see that rant!! Hmm.. maybe I should him the story of the church picketing Heath Ledger's funeral.. |
| StoneColdClassicQueen 26.01.2008 22:56 |
Or, I could call up my homeboy, Chuck Norris!! One roundhouse kick will straighten things out! |
| magicalfreddiemercury 26.01.2008 23:00 |
Lady Nyx wrote: what im curious about is, how do they know these people who have passed are 'gay' or whatever it is they hate this week? (note taht im talking about pre-heath legdger). did they go thru people who have died recently and searched for their orientation or make assumptions?That's one of the pathetic things about this group. It's not that they believe or care whether the person who died was gay, but that AMERICA tolerates gays in its society and military. That's what they're against. It's because of that "sin" that they picket military funerals, and other funerals, that they feel are the results of a "raging mad god's wrath". Where Heath Ledger's memorials are concerned, the fact that HE played a gay character in a movie disgusts them, but that the film was so successful proves to them that American - and the world - is unrepentant. And so, in their view, god's punishment has now come in the form of Heath Ledger's death. They're just sick and disgusting people. |
| StoneColdClassicQueen 26.01.2008 23:22 |
I just added a signature (lizvette), sent this story to my old schoolteacher whom I've known since I was 4 (she likes protesting too!), and I sent it to Brian May!!!! Long live gays!!! This touches me deeply because I have a gay friend, have known gay people throughout my life, I love Freddie Mercury, and I happen to like a couple of gay celebrities! (love Ellen DeGeneres' fashion sense!!!) It just irritates me so much that these people are evil enough to hate people just because of their sexual oriention!!! It's not like they're doing anything bad! They are free to live! >:/ I am just so pissed off!! |
| Lady Nyx 27.01.2008 00:10 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:they are, but they also have their views mixed up so in a way, its comical. it still doesnt mean its right for them to impose their beliefs on grieving people, regardless of their orientation. it mostly proves they are tactless and selfish people believing that their beliefs are the only ones.Lady Nyx wrote: what im curious about is, how do they know these people who have passed are 'gay' or whatever it is they hate this week? (note taht im talking about pre-heath legdger). did they go thru people who have died recently and searched for their orientation or make assumptions?That's one of the pathetic things about this group. It's not that they believe or care whether the person who died was gay, but that AMERICA tolerates gays in its society and military. That's what they're against. It's because of that "sin" that they picket military funerals, and other funerals, that they feel are the results of a "raging mad god's wrath". Where Heath Ledger's memorials are concerned, the fact that HE played a gay character in a movie disgusts them, but that the film was so successful proves to them that American - and the world - is unrepentant. And so, in their view, god's punishment has now come in the form of Heath Ledger's death. They're just sick and disgusting people. all someone has to say to her to shut her up (or fully deny it, either way it would be great) is to say that if God is somehow 'on their side' its not her place to judge, but His. what can she say to that? technically shes sending herself to hell anyway with all her contradictions. i dont think she knows if shes trying to save or condemn people anymore. someone needs to call her out on every contradiction. i dunno, its what i would do. its sad how someons insecurity can be inflated so badly as hers huh? |
| Music Man 27.01.2008 00:39 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Pass the URL onto 4chan. They're doing such a good job of making a laughing stock of Scientology, it seems they're the only one with balls enough to take up this kind of thing. Forget your petition. Online petitions are useless.How does anything even relevant to 4chan require any form of "balls?" Unless, of course, by "balls" you mean "immense quantities of immaturity and stupidity." |
| The Real Wizard 27.01.2008 02:27 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: A) Legally censoring these people would be an immoral abuse of justice.Nonsense. The line of "free speech" must be drawn somewhere... perhaps at *hate*? If this group was after black people instead of gay people, would they be granted the same right to free speech? The more press and attention these people get, the more they will feel that their "message" is getting across. But the bottom line is (and history has proven): when any prejudice comes into question, the prejudice will eventually die. |
| Music Man 27.01.2008 03:36 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Nonsense. The line of "free speech" must be drawn somewhere... perhaps at *hate*? If this group was after black people instead of gay people, would they be granted the same right to free speech?Freedom of expression must extend to all forms of expression that do not infringe upon the rights of others. There will always be speech that we do not want to hear, however, we do not have the right to not be offended. So yes, I truly hope that regardless of whom this group was after (blacks, homosexuals, Queen fans), that they should have every last one of their rights protected. Additionally, hate speech is nearly impossible to define. Who should be protected? Who should be excluded from this bubble of protection? What are the potential ramifications of this protection? Suggesting there should be limits to free speech is very dangerous, no matter how reasonable it seems, or no matter how many people may agree with you. It is the most basic - dare I say, the most important - freedom we have, and I'm surprised that you and Raf hold that opinion, although I respect and understand it. To me, this issue is as close to black and white as it gets. I could write pages on it, and we could delve deep into freedom of expression. Perhaps later one or both of you will have reconsidered - but if not, I welcome a discussion on the issue. |
| john bodega 27.01.2008 08:56 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:Yeah, until you play some part in spreading awareness about how fucking stupid Scientology is, I don't see your point.Zebonka12 wrote: Pass the URL onto 4chan. They're doing such a good job of making a laughing stock of Scientology, it seems they're the only one with balls enough to take up this kind of thing. Forget your petition. Online petitions are useless.How does anything even relevant to 4chan require any form of "balls?" Unless, of course, by "balls" you mean "immense quantities of immaturity and stupidity." I don't mean balls in the literal sense. I just mean a bit of motivation and the will do take on an established sect of asshats. |
| Raf 27.01.2008 10:45 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:Exactly. I personally think a person has the right to say "I don't like gays", "I don't like blacks", and so on. But those people aren't simply happy with not liking. They're defending the end of rights for a whole group of people. They're defending that a certain group of citizens should lose their civil rights. That is NOT a good thing. Luckily, they're a pretty small group. But we can't forget Hitler won democratic elections without cheating. Nazis didn't kill Germany's previous leader, took over and said "Either you accept us or you die". A large group of people simply liked those ideas and voted for them. And the group was large enough to win national elections.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Nonsense. The line of "free speech" must be drawn somewhere... perhaps at *hate*? If this group was after black people instead of gay people, would they be granted the same right to free speech?Freedom of expression must extend to all forms of expression that do not infringe upon the rights of others. There will always be speech that we do not want to hear, however, we do not have the right to not be offended. So yes, I truly hope that regardless of whom this group was after (blacks, homosexuals, Queen fans), that they should have every last one of their rights protected. Additionally, hate speech is nearly impossible to define. Who should be protected? Who should be excluded from this bubble of protection? What are the potential ramifications of this protection? Suggesting there should be limits to free speech is very dangerous, no matter how reasonable it seems, or no matter how many people may agree with you. It is the most basic - dare I say, the most important - freedom we have, and I'm surprised that you and Raf hold that opinion, although I respect and understand it. To me, this issue is as close to black and white as it gets. I could write pages on it, and we could delve deep into freedom of expression. Perhaps later one or both of you will have reconsidered - but if not, I welcome a discussion on the issue. I think people should be given the right to not like a group, and even say they don't like the group - but the minute their speech is against the group's freedom, their freedom of speech should be cut. By "rights" here, I mean human rights, of perfectly normal people. I think it's understandable to fight privileges certain groups have (e.g. some benefits people in the military have), as long as it's done in a polite way, explaining the reasons and without insulting. Now, trying to suspend a person's basic rights as a person is just plain wrong. Gays aren't criminals. What they do is their business, not ours. It's not like the gays are trying to rape the WBC's members, they're just living their lives and those lunatics are pestering them. Now, imagine if those guys find a leader who's very talented to speak to the masses and convince people, some as charismatic and talented as Hitler used to be... There could be a strong wave of homophobia crossing the United States, and maybe even expanding to outside the country. THAT is dangerous, THAT is a lot more threatening to freedom of speech than shutting a website that defends that kind of crap. |
| pittrek 27.01.2008 12:47 |
I know almost nothing about american laws, but in the country where I live is perfectly OK to say things like "I don't like homosexuals" or "homosexuality is wrong", but NOT things like "gays - burn in hell", "shoot all the fags" etc. |
| Ms. Rebel 27.01.2008 12:52 |
^Same here. |
| bitesthedust 27.01.2008 14:13 |
<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: They're insane.....i never heard of them until watching Louis Theroux's documentary, i was shocked to say the least!Wasn't the leader of the group a fan of Are You Being Served? Louis Theroux kept teasing him about John Inman....probably not the best idea. |
| Miss Multiples aka colfarrell1 27.01.2008 14:33 |
Hate speech is wrong and should be stopped.. |
| Ha-nah! 27.01.2008 14:56 |
I pity the children of those westboro bastards. They will never be an individual or learn to have their own opinions. It's fun prank calling them. Just a couple days ago I called them at 11:30 at night pretending to be a mexican immigrant who thought her 4 year old son was gay. Another time, I got into a heated debate with them.xD Here is there phone number if any of you are bored and need entertainment. 785 273-0325 |
| Ms. Rebel 27.01.2008 15:07 |
Ha-nah! wrote: I pity the children of those westboro bastards. They will never be an individual or learn to have their own opinions. It's fun prank calling them. Just a couple days ago I called them at 11:30 at night pretending to be a mexican immigrant who thought her 4 year old son was gay. Another time, I got into a heated debate with them.xD Here is there phone number if any of you are bored and need entertainment. 785 273-0325ROFLMAO! =) |
| its_a_hard_life 26994 27.01.2008 15:10 |
Ha-nah! wrote: 785 273-0325SOMEONE NOW CALL THAT NUMBER AND SUE THEM. XD |
| Ha-nah! 27.01.2008 15:29 |
Like a month ago I called them and said,"Howdy! I'm a fag!" and that Shirley Phelps bitch said,"Oh well you're going to hell, and thats all I have to say to you. Have a nice day." |
| Ms. Rebel 27.01.2008 15:54 |
<font color="#FF00FF">its_a_hard_life wrote:I'm gonna call them XDHa-nah! wrote: 785 273-0325SOMEONE NOW CALL THAT NUMBER AND SUE THEM. XD I'm already in trouble because of phone bills. Always my fault, always...:( LOL! If I'm gonna be offline for more than 4 days that means that I'm dead or I'm in the hospital xD |
| Ha-nah! 27.01.2008 16:04 |
<font color="9933FF"><b> Ms. Rebel wrote:Do it and tell us what happens!=D<font color="#FF00FF">its_a_hard_life wrote:I'm gonna call them XD I'm already in trouble because of phone bills. Always my fault, always...:( LOL! If I'm gonna be offline for more than 4 days that means that I'm dead or I'm in the hospital xDHa-nah! wrote: 785 273-0325SOMEONE NOW CALL THAT NUMBER AND SUE THEM. XD |
| Ms. Rebel 27.01.2008 16:25 |
^I could get fucked up pretty bad and you're having a good time >:( XD Are you maybe my long time lost sister? |
| Raf 27.01.2008 16:38 |
If anyone calls, please record the call and share it with all of us. xD |
| Carol! the Musical 27.01.2008 17:03 |
Ha-nah! wrote: I pity the children of those westboro bastards. They will never be an individual or learn to have their own opinions. It's fun prank calling them. Just a couple days ago I called them at 11:30 at night pretending to be a mexican immigrant who thought her 4 year old son was gay. Another time, I got into a heated debate with them.xD Here is there phone number if any of you are bored and need entertainment. 785 273-0325OH LORD, HANNAH, THAT'S PRICELESS xD I'm calling them today when I get a nice topid idea... ;P |
| Ha-nah! 27.01.2008 17:30 |
<font color=660066>Caddel<h6>somdomite wrote:Post your results on here! You should pretend to be the zombie of heath ledger!Ha-nah! wrote: I pity the children of those westboro bastards. They will never be an individual or learn to have their own opinions. It's fun prank calling them. Just a couple days ago I called them at 11:30 at night pretending to be a mexican immigrant who thought her 4 year old son was gay. Another time, I got into a heated debate with them.xD Here is there phone number if any of you are bored and need entertainment. 785 273-0325OH LORD, HANNAH, THAT'S PRICELESS xD I'm calling them today when I get a nice topid idea... ;P |
| Music Man 27.01.2008 18:03 |
<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: Exactly. I personally think a person has the right to say "I don't like gays", "I don't like blacks", and so on. But those people aren't simply happy with not liking. They're defending the end of rights for a whole group of people. They're defending that a certain group of citizens should lose their civil rights. That is NOT a good thing. Luckily, they're a pretty small group. But we can't forget Hitler won democratic elections without cheating. Nazis didn't kill Germany's previous leader, took over and said "Either you accept us or you die". A large group of people simply liked those ideas and voted for them. And the group was large enough to win national elections. I think people should be given the right to not like a group, and even say they don't like the group - but the minute their speech is against the group's freedom, their freedom of speech should be cut. By "rights" here, I mean human rights, of perfectly normal people. I think it's understandable to fight privileges certain groups have (e.g. some benefits people in the military have), as long as it's done in a polite way, explaining the reasons and without insulting. Now, trying to suspend a person's basic rights as a person is just plain wrong. Gays aren't criminals. What they do is their business, not ours. It's not like the gays are trying to rape the WBC's members, they're just living their lives and those lunatics are pestering them. Now, imagine if those guys find a leader who's very talented to speak to the masses and convince people, some as charismatic and talented as Hitler used to be... There could be a strong wave of homophobia crossing the United States, and maybe even expanding to outside the country. THAT is dangerous, THAT is a lot more threatening to freedom of speech than shutting a website that defends that kind of crap.So we must curtail rights in order to protect them? No, we must protect all rights at all times. It is not necessary to make sacrifices or tradeoffs to our liberty. Like I always say, we must be allowed to follow our will so long as our actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. As long as it contains no threats, hate speech does not infringe upon anyone's rights. Wanting or expressing the desire to curtail another's rights does not infringe upon anyone's rights. The act of curtailing their rights does, and at that point it must be stopped. You also mentioned "without insulting," to which I reply again: We do not have the right to not be offended. Tyranny of the majority is a very real threat, and that is exactly why we are granted natural, inalienable rights. Under no circumstances should they ever be violated. So finally, as long as there are no threats/predatory scripts/etc. on the website, it has every right to exist. We all have the right to be homophobic and express homophobic views. We also have the right to not go to such websites. |
| Jadie 27.01.2008 18:34 |
Oh dear. |
| josedequeso 27.01.2008 18:39 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: So we must curtail rights in order to protect them? No, we must protect all rights at all times. It is not necessary to make sacrifices or tradeoffs to our liberty. Like I always say, we must be allowed to follow our will so long as our actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. As long as it contains no threats, hate speech does not infringe upon anyone's rights. Wanting or expressing the desire to curtail another's rights does not infringe upon anyone's rights. The act of curtailing their rights does, and at that point it must be stopped. You also mentioned "without insulting," to which I reply again: We do not have the right to not be offended. Tyranny of the majority is a very real threat, and that is exactly why we are granted natural, inalienable rights. Under no circumstances should they ever be violated. So finally, as long as there are no threats/predatory scripts/etc. on the website, it has every right to exist. We all have the right to be homophobic and express homophobic views. We also have the right to not go to such websites.Music Man, you stole my post! I completely agree with everything you wrote. "Hate speech", no matter how vulgar or offensive it may be, is still free speech. And that’s not to say these people aren’t fucking nuts, I’ve dealt with people like this, and they are the scum of the earth. |
| The Real Wizard 27.01.2008 18:45 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: Freedom of expression must extend to all forms of expression that do not infringe upon the rights of others. There will always be speech that we do not want to hear, however, we do not have the right to not be offended. So yes, I truly hope that regardless of whom this group was after (blacks, homosexuals, Queen fans), that they should have every last one of their rights protected.Agreed. But the "godhatesfags" people don't stop at free speech. They go to funerals and harass people to the highest degree - particularly funerals for soldiers (since they allow gay soldiers in the army). I couldn't imagine how torturous that would be for the families. That's what I have a problem with, and I can't believe it's legal. That should count as disturbance of peace, at least... |
| Ms. Rebel 27.01.2008 18:57 |
Jadie wrote: Oh dear.HAHA! Well said xD |
| Music Man 27.01.2008 19:30 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:That's an entirely different issue. There is no reason, however, for this website to be censored. Along with what you said, to the best of my understanding, it seems that the harassment at funerals can and should be stopped.<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: Freedom of expression must extend to all forms of expression that do not infringe upon the rights of others. There will always be speech that we do not want to hear, however, we do not have the right to not be offended. So yes, I truly hope that regardless of whom this group was after (blacks, homosexuals, Queen fans), that they should have every last one of their rights protected.Agreed. But the "godhatesfags" people don't stop at free speech. They go to funerals and harass people to the highest degree - particularly funerals for soldiers (since they allow gay soldiers in the army). I couldn't imagine how torturous that would be for the families. That's what I have a problem with, and I can't believe it's legal. That should count as disturbance of peace, at least... |
| Mr.Jingles 28.01.2008 07:52 |
I don't agree with shutting down the website of the Westboro Baptist Church. If we're going to defend freedom of speech, it should be regardless of how horrendous hate speech might be. However, certain restrictions should be applied. They could be allowed to express their hate, but I agree that they should be barred from disturbing funerals by being kept at a considerable distance or face thousands in fines or prison if they attempt to cross the line. They have their right to speak out, but more important than that is the right families have to bury their dead without being disturbed. |
| john bodega 28.01.2008 08:54 |
Freedom of speech being what it is, doesn't this mean that people can gang up on these thugs, corner them, and laugh very loudly in their faces? Or something? I dunno, I haven't got any good ideas on me at the moment, but short of physical harm - there's a lot that the rest of us can do to get back at these emotional barbarians. |
| FriedChicken 28.01.2008 08:57 |
I don't see what anyone wants to believe in a god like that. He must be in the top 10 of most horrible fictional characters |
| Ha-nah! 28.01.2008 16:31 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: I don't see what anyone wants to believe in a god like that. He must be in the top 10 of most horrible fictional charactersHaha, that reminds me of when Lewis Black was comparing God to a raging alcholic..."I CAN SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOIN AND IF YOU DONT DO WHAT I SAY IM GONNA KICK YOUR FUCKIN ASS!"xD |
| Micrówave 28.01.2008 16:38 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: However, certain restrictions should be applied.Tax 'em. I know whenever one of these topics comes up, that's the first thing that comes out of my mouth. These sites make money. There's enough idiots in the world to donate $5-$10 because they agree with this crap. So there's enough money to buy up these obnoxious domain names. This church claims they are a non profit organization. Well, then that means maybe they're getting that website, internet, etc. "donated" as well. And you know who those companies pass that 'loss' onto right? Yep, we're probably all funding that website. I simply will take all your posts and know there's a website called that. I just won't check it out. Or maybe they just made a gramatical error and it was supposed to be DOGSHATEGAYS.COM. They could, you know... |
| The prophet's song 30.01.2008 07:41 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: Suggesting there should be limits to free speech is very dangerous, no matter how reasonable it seems, or no matter how many people may agree with you. It is the most basic - dare I say, the most important - freedom we haveAllow me to be dangerous and wholeheartedly say there should be a limit to free speech. That limit should come in place when that speech is infringing on what I see as the most important right: equality. This church is taking away the gays rights to be equal with the rest of society, in which like it or not, they are. I would put free speech at a close second, but you have to agree that equality is the foundation of a peaceful society. It is also, unfourtunatley, the one right people have the hardest time accepting. I'm not talking about economic equality or anything like that, I'm talking about equality in the sense that at the end of the day, we are all humans, and are all the same in that meaning. If you were in a battlefeild you'd think twice about firing your gun if you believed the person you might hit was your equal. Discrimination, taking away that right of equality, I feel, is one of the lowest things out there. The only thing worse than that are people who have the nerve to justify it, like this church. To me, they don't have a defensive leg to stand on. All the same though Music Man, you did make some good, realistic points in this and other posts you made. |
| FriedChicken 30.01.2008 11:41 |
Ha-nah! wrote:Wow now that you mention that I just realise how scary that thought is.FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: I don't see what anyone wants to believe in a god like that. He must be in the top 10 of most horrible fictional charactersHaha, that reminds me of when Lewis Black was comparing God to a raging alcholic..."I CAN SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOIN AND IF YOU DONT DO WHAT I SAY IM GONNA KICK YOUR FUCKIN ASS!"xD He knows what you think because he is in your head all the time If you even doubt him you will go to hell. So even if you might have had the slightest idea that there might not be a god you're fucked. god must have a special sense for that. Like Sauron knows when the One Ring is being used. Or like Spidey-sense Wow, god's a jerk! |
| FriedChicken 30.01.2008 12:37 |
By the way, I seriously doubt that this petition will help. Since godhatesfags.com is based on religion. And we all know that you can do anything you want as long as it's based on religion. If you would make a website called IHATEFAGS.com I'm sure it would be offline in matter of days |
| Mr.Jingles 30.01.2008 12:39 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: And we all know that you can do anything you want as long as it's based on religion.There's plenty of white supremacist and other radical racist sites on the internet. So it's not all about religion, it's just freedom of speech. |
| sparrow 21754 30.01.2008 21:13 |
what if we call it 'disturbing the peace containing hate crimes?' XD not the website, the protests. |
| john bodega 30.01.2008 22:06 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:I dunno, your examples of white supremacy usually have religious undertones to them. Maybe I'm imagining things but most of the American-based stuff (like Stormfront) usually brings up God at some point.FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: And we all know that you can do anything you want as long as it's based on religion.There's plenty of white supremacist and other radical racist sites on the internet. So it's not all about religion, it's just freedom of speech. I don't for a minute think they actually believe in God of course; they're just passing on what generations of morons have told them. |
| Music Man 30.01.2008 22:28 |
The prophet's song wrote:Equality is definitely a cornerstone of the United States of America. However, equality isn't a right - it is derived from our rights. If you want to protect equality, you must protect natural rights - you must protect freedom of speech, above all else.<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: Suggesting there should be limits to free speech is very dangerous, no matter how reasonable it seems, or no matter how many people may agree with you. It is the most basic - dare I say, the most important - freedom we haveAllow me to be dangerous and wholeheartedly say there should be a limit to free speech. That limit should come in place when that speech is infringing on what I see as the most important right: equality. This church is taking away the gays rights to be equal with the rest of society, in which like it or not, they are. I would put free speech at a close second, but you have to agree that equality is the foundation of a peaceful society. It is also, unfourtunatley, the one right people have the hardest time accepting. I'm not talking about economic equality or anything like that, I'm talking about equality in the sense that at the end of the day, we are all humans, and are all the same in that meaning. If you were in a battlefeild you'd think twice about firing your gun if you believed the person you might hit was your equal. Discrimination, taking away that right of equality, I feel, is one of the lowest things out there. The only thing worse than that are people who have the nerve to justify it, like this church. To me, they don't have a defensive leg to stand on. All the same though Music Man, you did make some good, realistic points in this and other posts you made. When we talk about equality, we are referring to equality in opportunity, and not, as you said, economic equality, or equality in outcome (which is, quite frankly, a ridiculous notion, although many socialist Handicapper Generals will disagree). However, this church is not impeding the rights of anyone through their website (although through other means, surely), and is therefore not a threat to their equality. I totally agree that equality is of the utmost importance. HOWEVER, whenever you try to impose equality, you are really hampering it. |
| Music Man 30.01.2008 22:30 |
Zebonka12 wrote:I think what he means is that these groups have the right to publish what they want because of their freedom of speech, not because of their affiliation to any religion.Mr.Jingles wrote:I dunno, your examples of white supremacy usually have religious undertones to them. Maybe I'm imagining things but most of the American-based stuff (like Stormfront) usually brings up God at some point. I don't for a minute think they actually believe in God of course; they're just passing on what generations of morons have told them.FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: And we all know that you can do anything you want as long as it's based on religion.There's plenty of white supremacist and other radical racist sites on the internet. So it's not all about religion, it's just freedom of speech. |
| john bodega 31.01.2008 08:45 |
Indeed, it just seems a shame to me that religion is usually used as a front for either bigotry or money-laundering. |
| iron eagle 01.02.2008 22:10 |
i said it before here and here i am saying it again nobody really gave two shites about that site and westboro for years...they have also been in the news and on talk shows for years.... suddenly they are showing up at soilders funerals...and everyone goes ape-shite... the less attention they get the better off all of us are |