• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Strikes Down Buffer Zones For Abortion Clinic Protests

They are DISTURBING THE PEACE of a quiet event, breaking the focus of the practicioners and thereby keeping them from fully practicing the tennants of their religious faith. Also if Freedom of Religion were EXCLUSIVE to the Congress then would it be fair for an OWNER of a PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT to not allow admittance to: Jews and Muslims? What say you?

You can also say they are disturbing the peace at an abortion clinic, and a lot of abortion clinics are privately owned. Standing up and holding a sign is not disturbing the peace.

I don't know what your second sentence means? :dunno: Freedom of religion is not exclusive to Congress, and who said anything about banning Jews and Muslims from anything? :dunno:
 
Last edited:
Read more @: Supreme Court Strikes Down Buffer Zones For Abortion Clinic Protests

In my opinion this is the correct decision. Protestors have the right to peacefully assemble on public spaces even if its over a really touchy subject such as abortion. There should be no "buffer zones" where people are not allowed to practice their right to free speech inside that "buffer zone". [/FONT][/COLOR]

I agree, but if the protesters try to block the door or block someone from entering the clinic, that is when free speech ends and action takes over. Action is not speech, although it seems the SCOTUS thinks it is with some of its past rulings.
 
You can also say they are disturbing the peace at an abortion clinic. Standing up and holding a sign is not disturbing the peace.

I don't know what your second sentence means? :dunno:

It means. Based on what you have said so far that say the owner of a BAR could deny entry to people based on their faith. ie. No Muslims and Jews in my bar. The 1st amendment applies not only to laws congress passes, but also to areas that generally service the public even IF they are privately owned. There is plenty of precedent to back up what I am saying too.


Also people getting an abortion aren't doing anything significant or special or of great meaning.... they are just getting their plumming drained. A funeral is a special ceremony and has certain elevated rights and statuses associated with it that abortion clinics do not.
 
It means. Based on what you have said so far that say the owner of a BAR could deny entry to people based on their faith. ie. No Muslims and Jews in my bar. The 1st amendment applies not only to laws congress passes, but also to areas that generally service the public even IF they are privately owned. There is plenty of precedent to back up what I am saying too.

I didn't say anything about banning anyone from anything. I merely said that in light of this SCOTUS decision, they can't constitutionally allow buffer zones at publicly held funerals. You're the one suggesting that people should be denied entry to a public event, not me.


Also people getting an abortion aren't doing anything significant or special or of great meaning.... they are just getting their plumming drained. A funeral is a special ceremony and has certain elevated rights and statuses associated with it that abortion clinics do not.

That's your opinion. Many people view getting an abortion as emotionally wrenching event and don't need the extra distress of people protesting them when they enter the privately owned clinic on privately owned land.
 
I didn't say anything about banning anyone from anything. I merely said that in light of this SCOTUS decision, they can't constitutionally allow buffer zones at publicly held funerals. You're the one suggesting that people should be denied entry to a public event, not me.




That's your opinion. Many people view getting an abortion as emotionally wrenching event and don't need the extra distress of people protesting them when they enter the privately owned clinic on privately owned land.

While I can't say you don't have a few good points here and there I would say that it is Waaaayyyy underhanded to apply this law as is in the case of abortion clinics to funerals... its a bit appaling and void of all moral reasoning.
 
While I can't say you don't have a few good points here and there I would say that it is Waaaayyyy underhanded to apply this law as is in the case of abortion clinics to funerals... its a bit appaling and void of all moral reasoning.

I agree with you that protesters a funeral are appalling, but forget the moral aspect, this SCOTUS decision opens a can of worms, unfortunately.
 
I agree with you that protesters a funeral are appalling, but forget the moral aspect, this SCOTUS decision opens a can of worms, unfortunately.

True, I wonder if SCOTUS is going to blanket judge all matters like this based on this precedent... or if they are going to look at the unique circumstances in different situations as well as the emotional toll involved in them. I can agree with you this opens up a lot of other challenges now.
 
True, I wonder if SCOTUS is going to blanket judge all matters like this based on this precedent... or if they are going to look at the unique circumstances in different situations as well as the emotional toll involved in them. I can agree with you this opens up a lot of other challenges now.

I don't know. Our Supreme Court is pretty damn unpredictable nowadays.
 
The funeral is not private. Anyone can go to anyone's funeral if it is held in a publicly open funeral.

It is the one backfire of this Supreme Court decision.

how many public open funerals do you know of? i know of 0. a funeral is a private event for friends or family of the deceased they are not for anyone that walks in.
they can remove people from the funeral if they try to create a disturbance.

your right to free speech doesn't trump someone else's right to privacy. which a funeral is a private ceramony for friends and family.
 
I'm sure the anti-choice crowd will appreciate their newfound ability to spit in the face of women who are already going through something hard.
 
But funerals, at least the vast majority that are held in publicly open cemeteries, are not private events. If there is no buffer zone at abortion clinics, there can't be buffer zones mandated at funerals.

That is untrue. They are held on private land, and the cemetery owner can decide who is allowed and who is not. So can a church.

I don't understand why there is such confusion between public and private.
 
That is untrue. They are held on private land, and the cemetery owner can decide who is allowed and who is not. So can a church.

I don't understand why there is such confusion between public and private.

They aren't private, the land may be privately owned, that's not the same thing as private. Abortions also may take place in privately owned clinics which are on privately owned land, yet protesters are permitted. No confusion on my part.
 
Last edited:
They aren't private, the land may be privately owned, that's not the same thing as private. Abortions also may take place in privately owned clinics which are on privately owned land, yet protesters are permitted. No confusion on my part.

Protesters are not permitted in abortion clinics. The sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic is public property whether the clinic is private or public.
 
Last edited:
Protesters are not permitted in abortion clinics.

They are permitted on the privately owned land that abortion clinics are on, and now with no buffer zones. Funerals will be next. There is no constitutionally valid reason why this can be permitted on privately owned abortion clinic land, and not at funerals.
 
Read more @: Supreme Court Strikes Down Buffer Zones For Abortion Clinic Protests

In my opinion this is the correct decision. Protestors have the right to peacefully assemble on public spaces even if its over a really touchy subject such as abortion. There should be no "buffer zones" where people are not allowed to practice their right to free speech inside that "buffer zone". [/FONT][/COLOR]

I think that pregnant women who want abortions, and are being harassed when they go to the clinic, should assert their Second Amendment rights here. :mrgreen:
 
I think that pregnant women who want abortions, and are being harassed when they go to the clinic, should assert their Second Amendment rights here. :mrgreen:

If the protesters put their lives in danger, absolutely! Simply holding a sign in protest, or even saying words, is not putting their lives in danger though.
 
Last edited:
I think that pregnant women who want abortions, and are being harassed when they go to the clinic, should assert their Second Amendment rights here. :mrgreen:

Sure why not. They are about to murder their own child in cold blood why shouldn't they kill protesters :roll:
 
They aren't private, the land may be privately owned, that's not the same thing as private. Abortions also may take place in privately owned clinics which are on privately owned land, yet protesters are permitted. No confusion on my part.

Actually, the abortion protests are taking place on the sidewalks in front of the clinics, and this is where the buffer zones were. The clinics do not allow the protesters on their private land. You are indeed confused.
 
They are permitted on the privately owned land that abortion clinics are on, and now with no buffer zones. Funerals will be next. There is no constitutionally valid reason why this can be permitted on privately owned abortion clinic land, and not at funerals.

You are mistaken. The protesters are not being allowed onto private land.
 
Read more @: Supreme Court Strikes Down Buffer Zones For Abortion Clinic Protests

In my opinion this is the correct decision. Protestors have the right to peacefully assemble on public spaces even if its over a really touchy subject such as abortion. There should be no "buffer zones" where people are not allowed to practice their right to free speech inside that "buffer zone". [/FONT][/COLOR]
If the protesters honestly thought it was murder, they would stop everyone from entering and burn the building to the ground.
 
I agree with the decision, but now those Westboro Baptist Church douchebags are going to be allowed to go right up next to the casket with their protests at funerals. That sucks.
No. What this means is other-than-legal means will be used against Wesboro.
 
I think that pregnant women who want abortions, and are being harassed when they go to the clinic, should assert their Second Amendment rights here. :mrgreen:

It would be interesting to learn what these clinics policies on guns are.

The clinic can support patients carrying, protesters will want to carry in responce, but in many states you cannot be armed while protesting, so this would be a good way to clear some of them out.
 
Sure why not. They are about to murder their own child in cold blood why shouldn't they kill protesters :roll:

Oh, so the second amendment doesn't apply to women getting an abortion. No right to defend themselves when they fear for their lives?
 
Funerals (at least Many funerals) in america are religious gatherings/events that hold a high ammount of meaning for the families of the deceased, one could say that allowing protesters at funerals which directly upsets and disturbs the practicing partie's observance of a religious practice. As such I believe the Freedom of Religion clause would trump the Freedom of Speech clause, at least for funerals which are private religious events.

So I guess if the people who went to get their abortion had their heads bowed in prayer, Freedom of Religion would trump the Freedom of Speech clause there too.

Problem solved!
 
While I can't say you don't have a few good points here and there I would say that it is Waaaayyyy underhanded to apply this law as is in the case of abortion clinics to funerals... its a bit appaling and void of all moral reasoning.

I have a feeling your feelings about this are determined by the fact that you go to funerals, but you dont get abortions.

Thats not the way to run public policy.
 
Back
Top Bottom