At a Funeral?
Not too long ago, there was a funeral for a soldier, a homosexual soldier, who died in combat. A anti-homo group went to the funeral and protested. What are your views about this?
It was wrong.
Side Score: 21
|
 |
There was no problem.
Side Score: 1
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
True this is the first time i will say that on the matter of gayness YOU ARE RIGHT! i mean what the hell were they thinking even if he wasn't a soider and just a normal gay guy (i really don't care if you don't think being gay is normal) it is STILL WRONG very wrong no way you can justify that what about if it was a achoholic soilder and he died in combat would you go protest that it's his fault there a drunk drivers? Side: It was wrong.
1
point
2
points
1
point
It isn't wrong. It's morally corrupt what they are doing. The dead are supposed to be buried in peace and these people are the complete opposite. Ohh, and by the way, the group doing this is called the Westboro Baptist Church. Ignorant, isn't it? A church going to funerals doing this! What a shame.. Side: It was wrong.
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
1
point
So long as the property owner of where they are protesting doesn't want to kick them out I see no problem. If the property owner doesn't want them doing it, they should be arrested for trespassing. If the property owner doesn't mind, then If it is true that the soldier being buried did die for their rights, then he died so they could protest at his funeral and i see no reason for the soldier, if he were alive, to be upset at people applying what he valued so much. Since the soldier, if he indeed did die for their rights, in all likelihood wouldn't mind, I also see nothing disrespectful about it. Now if he didn't particularly care for these people's rights, then his death was likely not particularly honorable, same with his life, to them and thus what reason do they have to 'honor' him? Especially if he was actively against them having the rights they have. Side: There was no problem.
The principles of free speech and expression should not be a license to disrupt and harass others. As a matter of common respect and decency you should give people who are mourning a loss their private space. The protesters should be socially ostracised for their performance, however if they are the WBC then I believe that has already been done to no effect. Side: It was wrong.
1
point
The ability to disrupt and harass is one of the greatest things about free speech. Disruption and harassment are among the fundamental tactics in the political sphere, an essential tactic to keeping government in check among other things. Most funerals are private spaces, and privacy can be arranged. I doubt it would be difficult to arrange the protesters as trespassers if they set foot on the majority of funeral grounds, and if they surround the funeral grounds and make a ruckus most people who would own the surrounding land would consider them trespassers as well and if they protest on the roads they are obstructing traffic, or protesting/parading/whatever on public grounds without a permit etc. All that should be required is a little more prep time, a few phone calls and maybe the owners signing something. Actually, the protesters should be ignored rather then socially ostracized. The attention they receive for doing it is the reason why they do it. Side: It was wrong.
|
