Pah said:
I was thinking that a funeral itself was the option. Cremation is certainly an option.
I don't see how. You have a stiff, and you have to do something with it, you know?
And no, cremation is not necessarily an option. Cremation is prohibited in my religion, unless the law demands it. And why should cremation be forced on a grieving family because some nutjob wants to protest and the family wants to avoid them? Why should the family have to postpone the grieving process and have their memorial service in private?
I'm sorry, but there's just no justice in that.
Missing a chance to pay last respects and provide closure is opportunity lost. But the Constitution, for example, does not grant that there is a right to be able to take all opportunities presented.
No, but there's the bit about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hardly think that barging into a funeral with abusive language and cursing falls under the heading of "happiness" and the "liberty" of the grieving family to be about their business sure is taken away by such antics. And a funeral is the sort of "opportunity lost" that is qualitatively different than the "opportunity" of having to take less time to cross the street because some protestors are crowded there.
It does also not grant "right" status to several other things long held in private tradition. I'm not against funerals but only comparing them to rights of a human being. The "right", if there was one, would have to belong to the deceased.
I don't see why the right would only belong to the deceased person and would not also belong to close family members.
I'm not advocating that an obnoxious display of hatred be accepted but that is must be fought by means other than law.
Oh, I would be *really* surprised if you were arguing it was acceptable behaviour. It would be completely unlike you.
I think I agree with this also but I'm not sure what you mean.
The law has no qualms about herding those who want to protest gatherings of the powerful into pens far from where the powerful will hear their voices.
And yet, we have qualms about keeping abusive fools away from a grieving family?
If that's the law, then the law is indeed an ***.
We need to reconsider our priorities.
The powerful are not personally harmed by protestors (well, provided they're peaceful, obviously). I would argue that grieving families are indeed harmed by these protestors, yet someone wants to argue that they should be able to be not just within earshot, but "in your face"?
Yes, it is a balance of rights (not the right of abortion but the right to do one's business where one chooses).
Exactly. And that is why I would never support any effort to just shut down Phelps group from protesting at all. I just see no reason why a family's funeral service should be turned into a circus in order for them to have their say. They can just as well tell everyone how homosexuality got us into Iraq by protesting in front of a recruiting office. sheesh
Nor, for that matter, do I see why anyone's religious service should be interrupted for any reason. It's not "freedom of religion" when you're trying to have a service and someone's making it impossible to do so.
There are some things in our society that really should be considered "sacred" and funerals and worship services would top my list. If we cannot find a way to do this while preserving someone's right to free speech, then we have fallen farther than I had thought.
Falwell (did I spell it right this time?) disrupts a lot of people's private life.
How so? And what form does his disruption take? I don't think disrupting someone's life is a sufficient reason.
So, I'd say disruption is not a differing point. A difference in my mind is that Falwell hides his hatred under the sheep's clothing of civil religious expression - hence why I said "much milder" for him.
Yes, well Christ did warn about wolves in sheep's clothing.