TexasCHLforum.com

bronco78 wrote:What I do not understand is, how the WBC’s right to free speech negates
Texas Penal code
§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

Certainly it is foreseeable that the WBC activities will be found under a common person’s concept to be offensive, and incite an immediate breach of peace.

iratollah wrote:City of Houston probably spent $10,000 - $15,000 providing protection for four of these hate mongers to spread their venom around our city on a Sunday and Monday. If they choose to go out in public to incite and be inflammatory, why should I pay for their protection? I'm subsidizing their brand of hate. Sure they have free speech, but if they want to be stupid about it and put themselves into situations where they intend to cause conflict, why should I pay for their fun?

iratollah wrote:City of Houston probably spent $10,000 - $15,000 providing protection for four of these hate mongers to spread their venom around our city on a Sunday and Monday. If they choose to go out in public to incite and be inflammatory, why should I pay for their protection? I'm subsidizing their brand of hate. Sure they have free speech, but if they want to be stupid about it and put themselves into situations where they intend to cause conflict, why should I pay for their fun?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

tallmike wrote:How many of you cared when they protested at gay funerals?

I cared, and I'm a dyed in the wool evangelical Christian. I've been following these crazies since 1998, before 9/11, before Afghanistan, before Iraq, and they are evil to the bone. I tried emailing them to engage in a Christian discourse back then because I thought their hatred ran so afoul of Christ's teaching, yes, even regarding gays. You should see the vomit they spewed in response. I call strawman to your charge.

gigag04 wrote:

frazzled wrote:The police have no duty to protect individual citizens. As such there is no reason for police to provide escort or protect. Remove that coverage. Let nature take its course.

Disagree.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

SwimFan85 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:And by the way, they are NOT "Baptists."

I was waiting for someone to say they're "not Christian" like the Flying Over The Cukoo's Nest guys. Saying they're not baptists is a twist. What's the deal? Do they not practice adult baptism? Is there something else that disqualifies them from being baptists other than being nut jobs?

Now I'm waiting for someone to say the Pope is not Christian.

They aren't Christian either (and I never said the Pope isn't a Christian). My problem with the use of the word "Baptist" is that the Southern Baptist Convention, of which my church is an affiliate, gets a "guilt by association" bad rap from people because WBC has the word "Baptist" in their name. But they are no more Baptist than they are Christian.

lrb111 wrote:

marksiwel wrote:talked to the wife about this
basically she said That as long as groups like this are around we can be pretty sure that Freedom is still alive.
The reasoning?
Because if we can let Horrible Hate spewing jerks like this run around without censorship than we are doing pretty good for the rest of us.
You think they let stuff like this happen in Iran or Saudi Arabia, how about China?

What about the right to Privacy? Abortion, and homosexuality are covered by Privacy rights.
How about libel and slander?
How about provocation from the Westboro crowd?

boomerang wrote:Their zip code starts with 666. Coincidence?