Assignment #2
Overviewing the case of Snyder v. Phelps it could be easily misconstrued about who was at fault morally rather than coming to a conclusion according to federal law. From thoroughly investigating the case it is infact accurate that Fred Phelps and his following a Westboro Baptist Church based in Topeka,Kansas focus and actively execute their ideas about God’s supposed hatred for the United States,and their tolerance of homosexuals.Particularly, the congregation focuses on homosexuality within the military and exercises their opinion by protesting their public opinion alongside military funerals to get their point across.
In 2006, the followers of Fred Phelps alerted law enforcement beforehand
…show more content…
that they would indeed be protesting right across from recently deceased Corporal Matthew Snyder. Westboro Church complied with authorities rules and regulations and continued to picket during the ceremony approximately 1,000 feet away from the ceremony actively conveying messages about the United States such as “Thank God for 9/11;God Hates the United States”. By the same token that these messages are not only controversial they are picketing on a public land in the same proximity to the funeral. Father to the deceased, Albert Snyder was unaware of the Westboro Church’s doing until after hearing a news feature about his son’s funeral he then became clear on the church’s message.Snyder indeed filed a suit against Westboro Baptist soon after declaring they caused intentional emotional distress,resulting from their actions upon that day.Westboro Church stood by the fact of the matter that they had been exercising their birth right of one of the First Amendment’s prime subjects Freedom of Speech clause which they are supposedly protected under. From the views of the Westboro Baptist church picketing and protesting is a key form of action when it comes to spreading their messages to others.The baptist church has a distorted view of the bible and uphold the right to express these beliefs. Albert Snyder on the other hand, is in great emotional agony resulting in severe depression. Snyder felt his son served his country and died in the process and expresses that his son Matthew rightfully should have had a peaceful ceremony as well as be mourned with some form of respect. Regarding the fact that the Westboro Church were indeed conveying hurtful and emotional messages people were indeed mourning and were bombarded with distracting picket motions across from the church. Matthew Snyder had been murdered while defending his country,from the perspective of his family,colleagues,and those who were at the church mourning their recent loss.The Snyder family have the right to respect during the funeral without interference from a baptist church in which they do not share the same beliefs.
Besides the fact of the church lacking respect,the Westboro Baptist Church has been criticized for their abuse of their constitutional right and responsible for the families emotional distress.
Naturally, situation ethics should have come in action before Phelps and his following decided to protest at funerals in general even though they are infamous for the act. If the church had considered moral principles and made a relative decision to not protest at this particular funeral especially since Matthew Snyder was not a homosexual so why must his family suffer in further stand still than necessary. In views of Albert Snyder the church had no absolute right to be protesting their views while he was laying his son to rest. Snyder had been viewing the baptist church by their actions in which resulted in his severe
…show more content…
depression. Due to the fact that the Westboro Baptist Church members state that they believe that "God hates America" because they believe the United States supports homosexuality. Therefore, they believe that anyone who fights and dies to protect and preserve America and its rights is evil. In addition, they express hatred for many other minorities and religions. In any circumstance they will fulfill their moral duty to their parish and faithful followers to show that they really live by their values and attitudes towards certain situations. Furthermore, though the church has a right to extort these messages as part of the first amendment right they must acknowledge the Albert Snyder morals are similar in contrast to the Agape principle, his family and mourners are entitled to mourn their loss in private.It's obvious Westboro Baptist Church would be in uproar if anyone refused them their rights to believe what they do,doesn't mean they have the right to impose their beliefs on others especially during a funeral. Albert Snyder loyalty not only lies to those who knew his son,but to the other families who have been affected by the Westboro Church and their wrongdoings. My stance as a bystander knowing all the facts to this case, I feel that yes the Westboro Church is entitled to their opinion and messages they wish to express its more than accurately their birthright.From my own personal views, their actions are considered indecent and beneath basic human dignity by hundreds of thousands of people.Westboro Baptist Church constantly invades over 200 military funerals they have protested with absolutely no regard to the grieving families.
Furthermore, what if other groups embraced their own reasons, regardless of facts or common decency, for disrupting private funerals of people they do not know? Would any funeral, any private function, be safe from intrusion?My values are more so seen as right is right and wrong is wrong depending on situational circumstances. In this particular case I am a stakeholder to this case , though I am not of the Baptist religion I believe everyone is entitled to their own sexual orientation. For example, I could honestly be at an acquaintance funeral and would be highly offended if I came in contact with those disturbing the mood of the funeral negatively all because they feel they are effectively communicating their hate messages. The ethical principle I would have probably have used is beneficence,this method applies the theory to do what is good. This priority to "do good" creates an moral behavioral standpoint and possible solution to an ethical dilemma acceptable. This principle is also generates the
largest ratio of good over evil possible in the world. Overall, it would be my moral duty to do what is right for society and the majority that is affected by the Westboro Church’s actions same goes vice-versa.
On the 11th of June, 1982 following the conviction of a criminal offense, Robert Johnson was sentenced to two years probation. The terms of his probation included his person, posessions, and residence being searched upon reasonable request. When a search warrant was executed for Johnson’s roommate, officers testified that with enough reasonable suspicion, they were able to search Johnson’s living area as well.
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
It is important, of course, to note that the Supreme Court was not able to immediately create and implement desegregation policy, because the Court does face constraints in the area of local implementation. However, the Brown decision was crucial for the success of the desegregation movement, because it supported the Civil Rights Act and provided a precedent for later decisions like Green that would help to implement the ruling at the district level. The courts were thus able to make decisions in this policy area that profoundly shaped the way that civil rights policy developed in the United States, as the courts were enabled to create successful policy in the area of school desegregation because of the combined influence of federal court
Abstract On June 26, 2015 a divided Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples could now marry nationwide. At the time of the split ruling there were 9 supreme court justices, 5 of the justices were Republicans, and the remaining 4 were Democrats. In high profile cases it is except that the justices will vote along party lines. When the 5-4 ruling was reveled by the following statement. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right (Corn,2015).” written by
The Texas vs Johnson case didn't drastically change the way people viewed things. Yes, the trial caused a lot of uproar, especially in Texas because of its patriotism, but it wasn't a case in which a law or amendment needed to be changed but rather was a case in which an amendment needed to be understood. Johnson’s act of burning the American flag in front of Dallas City Hall, in order to protest the Reagan administration during the Republican National Convention, was deemed as a sign of “symbolic” speech. Johnson’s act was ruled to be protected by the first amendment because speech was considered more than just the written word. The Supreme Court ruled it as such because of prior cases such as “Stromberg v. California” and “Tinker v. Des
Abortion is a topic that many don’t want to discuss. It’s a very personal decision that many women have to make each day, but in certain states, getting an abortion was becoming an even more difficult process. Not only did women have to decide to get an abortion that alone is a difficult choice, they now had to wait 24 hours, minors had to get consent, and/or inform the father of the child. But after all of this process, what if a woman couldn’t receive all of this? Would she be denied her right to get an abortion? The Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey, wasn’t known for what it did, but mainly for what it did not do, which was not overruling Roe v. Wade, but reaffirming a woman’s right to an abortion; it questioned a state’s right to impose or place an “undue burden” on women.
As with all Supreme Court cases, the meaning of the Lawrence v. Texas will deepen when in the process of its interpretation as well when it is cited by the lower state courts and The Supreme Court itself. In any situation, the decision in the case contains the brave declaration of the dignity and freedom of choice of all homosexual individuals. It was celebrated by the homosexual activists fighting for the equal rights in the hope that the future legal advances may follow. Social conservatives have deplored the decision for the same reason. Nevertheless, the ruling of the Court was neutral, therefore it was fair.
Roe v Wade is a famous trial that made abortion within the first trimester of pregnancy legal nationwide. The final jurisdiction of the trial took place in 1973, a time when women had to fight especially hard for their rights and freedoms. The Supreme Court looked at three different cases, all centered around abortion. The parties included plaintiffs Jane Roe (Norma Leah McCorvey), husband and wife John and Mary Doe (David and Marsha King), and Dr. James Hubert Hallford; the defendant was Texas in all three cases (Pan). At first all of the issues were heard in Texas courts, and eventually all taken to the Supreme Court. Roe went to court because she believed that the state of Texas was infringing upon her personal rights to get a safe clean
The Roe v. Wade case originated in the state of Texas in 1970 at the suggestion of Sarah Weddington an Austin attorney. Norma McCorvey otherwise known as "Jane Roe" was an unmarried pregnant woman seeking to overturn the anti-abortion law in the state of Texas. The lawsuit claimed that the statue was unconstitutionally vague and abridged privacy rights of pregnant women guaranteed by the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments to the constitution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade)
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
The ruling of Baehr vs. Lewin was a victory for gay rights activists, hope for other states searching for the same freedom, and disappointment for opponents of same-sex marriage. Yet this victory was short lived (until complete legalization in November 13, 2013) since the state appealed the lower court’s decis...
First Amendment issues of the separation of church and state and state establishment of religion have long been litigated in the federal courts. Until recently, the Supreme Court had a consistent track record of preventing the intermingling of religion and government, especially when it came to the nation's public schools. Yet this past year, a newly activist conservative court has set about rewriting some of the Warren Court's judicial legacy. In the 1995 case of Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, declared that the University of Virginia was constitutionally required to subsidize a student religious magazine on the same basis as secular publications and activities. This decision opens the door to greater government financial support for religious organizations. Groups like the Christian Coalition and the American Center for Law and Justice, the legal wing of Pat Robertson's financial empire, saw this narrow decision as a victory for their agenda of weaving together government and religion, thus tearing down the wall of separation between church and state, To justify their pursuits, they site the need for moral leadership in this country, which many view as ethically and morally rudderless. Yet Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, and other similarly thinking individuals and groups are promoting an agenda more far reaching than their mainstream supporters have in mind. The move to infuse government with a greater religious presence has almost nothing to do with instilling traditional values and morality, and almost everything to do establishing Christianity, specifically evangelical Christianity, as the state religion. ...
Hudson, David L., Jr. "1st Amendment at issue in ban on gay-conversion therapy for minors. " ABA Journal. N.p., n.d. Web. The Web. The Web.
Have you ever wondered how abortion came to be legal? It was decided in the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was a major landmark in not only the abortion issue, but also in American government.
"The ACLU and Freedom of Religion and Belief." American Civil Liberties. (2013): n. page. Web. 2013.