WBC does not object to DADT, they object to the existence of homosexuals period. They protest service members funerals because the US government does not outlaw homosexuality entirely, and execute each and every pervert in the country.
Actually they protest funerals hoping to incite somebody to violence so they can sue and get a big payday, but carefully and scrupulously avoid the Brandenburg line. Homosexuality is a ruse. Or perhaps its six of one, half dozen of the other. I don't pretend to fully understand minds that diseased.
Either way, I fail to see how stripping rights from others in the name of making them pay a judgment (since a Snyder victory here still won't stop them) is doing anything but cutting off our own noses and giving them a status they don't deserve. Their sicko followers and sycophants will just give them more money, and they'll be right back to doing what they've always done.
Honestly, I also have an issue with expanding the underlying tort of IIED. It's already too subjective, and the implications of somebody getting an IIED award for voluntarily viewing third party media content is troubling in itself. How can or should it be possible for a third party to intentionally inflict distress on a person for something they voluntarily seek out? But maybe that's a different thread.
Let's see....permanent loss of First Amendment rights for many others vs. temporary financial setback for a small group of scumbags. Once again, not exactly rocket science.
Last edited: