punishment for u.s. tolerance of homosexuality.

[blugiant]

Re: punishment for u.s. tolerance of homosexuality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Peasie</div><div class="ubbcode-body">&quot;This story is in the media that is why I am posting it&quot; reveals an imbecilic attitude of someone trying to hide behind their transparent agenda of hate.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body">diss storee iss inn da media dat y mii poasinn itt. dem awlso wass protestinn da oscar</div></div> </div></div>

intarestinn take yu tink mii tryinn fii hide behind a transparent agenda aff hate. . actuallee mii xxplaininn dat regular media usinn publishinn ann usinn a certain wurd ann pitchas widd da wurd inn itt ann dat y mii poasinn itt.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">UPI NewsTrack TopNews

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday said it would hear argument in the case of a Kansas preacher and his anti-homosexual crusaders who picket soldiers' funerals.

A lower court has thrown out a $5 million damages verdict against the preacher and others.

Four years ago, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder was killed on duty in Iraq. His family arranged for a private service at a Catholic church in Westminster, Md., followed by burial, SCOTUSblog.com reported.

But the Rev. Fred W. Phelps, an anti-gay crusader who has gained notoriety protesting military burials, showed up with members of his family. Phelps is pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan.

The protesters do not say the fallen soldiers are homosexuals. Phelps contends God hates America because it tolerates homosexuality and his campaign spreads its message online at godhatesfags.com.

The protesters at the Snyder funeral carried signs saying, among other things, &quot;Matt in hell&quot; and &quot;Semper fi fags,&quot; the report said.

Albert Snyder, the fallen Marine's father, sued Phelps, his daughters and the Westboro church under Maryland law, winning a $5 million verdict for intrusion into a secluded event, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy, SCOTUSblog reported.

A federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., overturned the verdict, saying the First Amendment protected the protesters' speech, which dealt with a matter of political concern -- homosexuality.

In asking the justices for review, Snyder's lawyers pointed out the Supreme Court's 1988 decision in Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell, which said high court jurisprudence protecting even hateful speech does not apply &quot;to private individuals versus private individuals,&quot; SCOTUSblog said.

The case should be heard in late spring or early next fall.

.. </div></div>

[blugiant]

Re: punishment for u.s. tolerance of homosexuality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There isn't anyone on Jams.com who is posting a constant stream of homophobic rants except you. Can't you see it? We all know that gays are out there, but we don't think about them 24/7 like you do.

People who are always bringing them up soon fall into the category of those who protest tooo much. Compredes? </div></div>

sah soo addar jam.com peeps doan bunn as much fiyah pon funnee peeps ann? sah yaawd seyinn fallaw fashion monkey neva ......etc. yu knoo mii natt fallaw fashion monkey soo itt fiyah ann more fiyah pon funnee peeps

raddar dan discussinn da issue da tredd beecum attakk da poastah. yu knoo dem typa strategy nuh wukk soo oonnoo fii cum widd diffarant argument fii aviod da real issue

soo wat yu tryinn fii sey iss dat blakk peeps wey bunn too much fiyah pon racist homosexuals protest too much fall inna dat categoree

[loops]

Re: punishment for u.s. tolerance of homosexuality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">Members of a Kansas-based church have picketed military funerals to spread their belief that deaths of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality</span></div></div>


mii affii defend dem mzungu free speech rites fii bunn fiyah pon homosexuality. decent ann religious peeps communitee tandards </div></div>

you really are a full blown IDIOT.

[blugiant]

Re: punishment for u.s. tolerance of homosexuality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Natral</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

yu ear ear da chune nutinn nuh gawn soo. y wood a narmal parsan tink dat peeps bunninn fiyah pon homosexuals ar repress homosexual.

</div></div>

I dont think you are a repressed homosexual,..I think you are just out and out plain <span style="font-size: 17pt">GAY</span>......but no one on the board cares mate,even credible news source fails to be credible once YOU post them on here because your credibility went out the window after your first 2 thousand rant threads about homosexuals.

</div></div>

















diss mekk mii laff

nuetral a cawl peeps gay

ann den a qwestian dem credibilitee wen dem bunn fiyah pon homosexuals

yu kno dat pitcha iss fram credible news source

[loops]

Re: punishment for u.s. tolerance of homosexuality

i'm just wondering if you tried to go join that church....would they accept you?

open minded peeps that they are.

[blugiant]

Re: punishment for u.s. tolerance of homosexuality

<span style="font-weight: bold">now back pon de real issue bout respectinn free speech even iff itt affensive</span>


The Supreme Court is getting involved in the legal fight over protesters who show up at military funerals with inflammatory messages like, &quot;Thank God for dead soldiers,&quot; &quot;Thank God for 9/11,&quot; and &quot;God Hates Fags.&quot;

The court agreed Monday to consider whether the protesters message, no matter how provocative and upsetting, is protected by the First Amendment.

At issue here is the Westboro Baptist Church, the Kansas-based religious group led by Fred Phelps that has achieved national notoriety for picketing funerals of soldiers killed in action during the Iraq war while displaying placards bearing shock-value messages. The church is made up almost entirely of the Phelps family clan, and includes young children spouting the hateful messages.

The family protests gays being allowed in the military, saying they believe the military and the country supports a homosexual agenda. They have appeared at funerals all over the country, raising the hackles of pretty much everyone.

Finally, someone sued and won. The church appealed. The High Court will hear the case.

The lawsuit was filed by Albert Snyder of York, PA. His son, a Marine, was killed in Iraq in 2006. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church picketed the funeral.

Snyder sued in a Baltimore federal court on the grounds that the church had invaded the family's privacy and exacerbated their pain and suffering. The jury agreed and awarded $11 million in damages.

The church maintained they did nothing wrong and based their legal defense on the First Amendment, arguing that their protests were constitutionally protected.

Snyder's lawsuit is the first of its kind, so the legal precedent alone gives signal importance to the high court's ruling. But it's the venomous, inflammatory nature of the speech in question that, in the minds of many, will test the principals of the First Amendment. The essential question being, &quot;Can Free Speech go too far? If it can, where is the line?&quot;

The case will be heard in the fall and the ruling could impact nearly two dozen states that have passed or propose laws restricting funeral protests, and a ban by Congress prohibiting protests at federal cemeteries.


..

[loops]

Re: punishment for u.s. tolerance of homosexuality

the REAL issue is intolerance.

[blugiant]

Re: punishment for u.s. tolerance of homosexuality

<span style="font-weight: bold">This case will be a test of something else: How self-centered we are when it comes to the laws we say we hold dearest, and certainly, the right of Free Speech is one of our most treasured possessions, but we don't seem to treasure it enough when it comes to speech we don't like.
Sorry, but too damned bad if you don't like it.</span>
As much as we may find the message from the Westboro Baptist Church to be repugnant, the First Amendment must stand. If you favored that jury decision to award $11 million to the father of a Marine killed in Iraq, you are defaming what that soldier died to protect: The United States Constitution. You are saying the oath that soldier took is meaningless.
What Fred Phelps and his clan do is abhorrent and despicable, but it would be more abhorrent to quash free speech and the First Amendment. We dissent in this country because it is protected, even when it is protest of the most vile and hateful nature.
No question, these people are despicable, I think we all agree. I think we can all agree that they give a bad name to anyone calling themselves a Christian. But there are questions for us to ponder:
The first is obvious: <span style="font-weight: bold">Free speech. Do you believe in free speech? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.</span>
Freedom of speech is pretty easy to defend when your child is very young, reading nursery rhymes or singing patriotic songs, or giving a speech about some wonderful community endeavor. That's all free speech, we love that kind of free speech; it's easy.
But when someone is right in your face calling you names --that is, not crossing a line that would constitute assault but just before it, right under it, right in your face, calling you names-- would you support that free speech? If you are a passionate advocate of the First Amendment (and I'm sure most if you say you are) you should. Do you?
Yes, there *are* limits on free speech --if it puts someone in danger (&quot;yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater&quot; when there is no fire), if it's threatening, or if it's libelous or slanderous. But the Westboro filth doesn't fit any of those descriptions. It's not even an &quot;invasion of privacy&quot;; they protest in public spaces. Here's what we don't have:
--We have no crime
--No allegations of a crime
--No evidence of a crime
--No proof that anyone's ever committed a crime based on the actions of these people
--Unless you have a crime, this is nothing more than an emotional hot button issue
--Is there anything illegal here? What if all we have here is unpopular speech? That's not a crime.
<span style="font-weight: bold">The First Amendment defends people with unpopular opinions. Yes, their behavior is abhorrent, but that's the way freedom works in this country. In this country, you have a right to be wrong; you have a right to be offensive. Is the First Amendment based on morality or free speech? If you say morality, whose morality? Yours? When did we add an amendment saying that we have the right to not be offended? The whole point of the First Amendment is to allow the minority to voice their opinion, even if we find it ugly.</span>

But here's a question to ponder. Maybe <span style="font-weight: bold">what makes this issue so incendiary isn't their message, but their location: They protest at the funerals of soldiers.</span>
Let's take the military component out of it. If these people were only protesting at gay funerals --a family mourning the loss of a son or daughter who was gay, a child who succumbed to AIDS, or violence, or maybe their child was a member of the military and gay-- and doing it in the same poisonous manner, how many of you would care? How many of you would be less disgusted if the message were, &quot;God hates fags&quot;? Would some of us even be inclined to agree if the military component was removed from the equation? Would you be inclined to support that message? I think some of us would. Would you? Just curious.

[blugiant]

Re: punishment for u.s. tolerance of homosexuality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: loops</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the REAL issue is intolerance. </div></div>

mii agree widd yu peeps ar intolerance aff peeps speech ann opinion dat dem disagree widd. yu see dat mii cansistant inn supportinn peeps free speech rites ann mii bunn fiyah pon censarship tings

[loops]

Re: punishment for u.s. tolerance of homosexuality

at this point, consistency is the ONLY thing you got going for you.

[blugiant]

Re: punishment for u.s. tolerance of homosexuality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: loops</div><div class="ubbcode-body">at this point, consistency is the ONLY thing you got going for you. </div></div>

consistency ann dat moas peeps agree widd mii. dat wat disturb yu loops. now fii anwsar dat addar qwestian yu asked

y mii tink mii ann dem mzungu cood sitt dunn ann reason?

mii tink mii ann yu agree dat mii find dem protestinn att funeral repugnant ann disrespectful. wear wii disagree iss dat even dough mii disagree widd protestinn at funeral mii willinn fii defend dem free speech rite to protest at funerals. natt eediatikk juss andarstandinn da free speech issue ann oww dem caan use diss fii limit free speech rites

itt like peeps pon diss board wey tri fii diss ann cawl mii name. mii defend dem rite to do itt even dough dem bawl, cuss ann luv fii blow whistle wen mii respand inn kind widdout cussinn

[loops]

Re: punishment for u.s. tolerance of homosexuality

who are these most peeps you speak of? stats please.

i myself have never concerned myself with what &quot;most peeps&quot; think, as i think for myself.

[loops]

Re: punishment for u.s. tolerance of homosexuality

btw...there is free speech...and there are hate crimes. where shall we draw the line?

[britisha]

Re: punishment for u.s. tolerance of homosexuality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: loops</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i'm just wondering if you tried to go join that church....would they accept you?

open minded peeps that they are. </div></div>

The thought did cross my mind this morning, that they'd be the first ones to call him Ni**ah. still yet he thinks it is okay to defend them....hiff a laff a pap.

[evanovitch]

well dem being tolerant cause is di latest ting fi stay yah

GAY STORY KEEPS JAMAICAN IN USA - Says he was being attacked here
A Jamaican man who was staring in the face of imminent deportation from the United States of America (USA) after overstaying and being convicted of crimes in that country was spared the embarrassing trip home after telling American authorities he was a homosexual and would killed if was sent back home.

According information contained in a Miami, Florida court document dated March 2 which THE STAR perused, the local man, 28, grew up in St Ann. He, however, left that parish for St Catherine in 1997 after a run-in with friends.

The document read: &quot;When he was attending Marcus Garvey High School, he was stoned and beaten when they found out he was gay. He was on his way home from school, and he was hugging his friend (name omitted), when some other friends saw him and they beat him and stoned him.&quot;

After fleeing to St Catherine to live with an aunt, the court document states that the alleged gay man had another life-threatening encounter all because of his sexual preference. The file read that while living in Bridgeport, a group of attackers confronted him and &quot;held a knife at his throat and told him it was because he was gay. He was lucky that someone came along who knew him and saved him&quot;.


vistor's visa

Information continued that following that incident, the man's mother, who was in the US, flew down and filed for him and he obtained a visitor's visa and went to that country in April 1998.

Reports further stated that he was never granted permanent resident status and remained in American beyond the six months period he was authorised to stay.

Close to five years later, he was convicted in February 2002 for unlawful use of a false name or Identity. He was also convicted of burglary of a dwelling and escaped on October 3, 2008.

Subsequent to the convictions, immigration authorities ruled that the Jamaican man be deported for violation of sections of the US Immigration and Nationality Act, particularly staying beyond the time authorised, being convicted of a crime involving a controlled substance and being convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct.

However, legal representation for the reportedly gay man filed an application for withholding of removal (a staying of the deportation order), &quot;arguing that the (Jamaican man) would be persecuted and/or tortured in Jamaica because he is a homosexual&quot;.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Although the document stated that the man did not file for asylum until his troubles with the law started</span> and that application was denied, the Florida court ruled: &quot;While the respondent has committed crimes in this country, and did come to the United States with the intent of staying, facts which might cause a denial of asylum as a matter of discretion, there is no discretion with regard to withholding of removal. Therefore, the court will grant withholding of removal to Jamaica.&quot;