Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Sarah Palin slams US Supreme Court decision on ‘God Hates Fags’ church

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. johnny33308 3 Mar 2011, 5:33pm

    The world must be coming to an end… I am in agreement, for the very first time, with Palin!
    Something in cleary wrong!
    How disturbing! Unsettling! Unimaginable!

  2. Johnny33308 – don’t worry, you probably don’t agree with her. Re-read the article and you’ll see her outrage is that you can’t mention god in a public square (i.e. at a government event), but are entitled to freedom of speech. In denouncing the protesters, she mentions funerals for dead soldiers. This doesn’t mean she cares about the homophobia. If they were picketing a gay person’s funeral I doubt she would have any objection and would be championing their “freedom of speech”. That Palin thinks speech that offends her and her supporters should be banned and that god has a place in the process of US government shows how little she understands of her own country’s constitution.

  3. their web site still down ha ha I guess they have to keep busy do something useless – why don’t they go and help the starving in Africa – mind you they probably have a site god hates starving children.

    If there was ever a bunch of folk in need of medication its the phelps

    1. That response made me laugh, i’ll bet they do have a god hates starving kids site.

  4. I too was initially torn when I read the headline. But, then I realized, as David mentioned, that her outrage was that people were free to express themselves peacefully at the side of the road while she couldn’t bring religion into the government.

    1. Michael Bourque 3 Mar 2011, 9:27pm

      yeah Ha,Ha,ha Sarah is really a sad sight.
      If you watch clips of her in her earlier years, she reminds me of the” church lady” played by Dana Carvey from SNL.
      Listen to what she was saying back then and you will know her hidden agenda.
      …you cannot be anymore lost, than following any person saying they “found” God. What a silly twit!

  5. RoughAcres 3 Mar 2011, 6:42pm

    I abhor the Westboro “church” and its Phelps devotees. I find their protests and language despicable, deplorable, sickening and horrendous. All that having been said… in the United States, we do have the right to free speech. And I would rather see a million Phelps’s than a single, censored, speaker in defense of liberty.

    We need to parse this issue carefully to find that thin line between “free” speech and “hate” speech. I’m not sure what it’s made of – other than Truth, which is impossible to define – but I can smell the stink of the hate even if I stand on the other side of that line…. I need to read the decision of the Court to see what their reasoning was, particularly since the vote was nearly unanimous.

  6. “Justice Samuel Alito was the sole dissenter in the case of free speech versus privacy rights. He argued the First Amendment did not protect Americans indulging “vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate” during “a time of intense emotional sensitivity.””

    I hate to say it, but it does. The first amendment absolutely and unequivocally protects free speech, regardless of it’s content, and because there are no federal anti-hate speech laws, they do have the right to protest.

    That doesn’t justify their position, as obviously they’re a bunch of nutters, but under American law they can protest.

    1. Luke from Canada 3 Mar 2011, 8:12pm

      the question is if there was some type of federal hate speech laws, would that be considered unconstitutional? If it did then technically so would doma, as its moral disproval, but would it serve a states interest?

      1. The US Constitution demands a small limited federal government with very limited powers and scope. With that yes both should be considered unconstitutional because the federal government has no basis on which to regulate these issues, and of course the first amendment STRICTLY prohibits any law that abridges the freedom of speech or expression

  7. I severely dislike the woman, however she has a point. And in her defense at least she was referring to what they said as hate speech. Also I think she has a point, talking about your faith can be a lot less hurtful than the evil the Phelps spew everywhere.

    1. Paddyswurds 3 Mar 2011, 7:40pm

      @Daniel….No on all counts. This badly written article (where does PN get it’s staff writers) doesn’t make it very clear. Sarah Palin is only railing against the ruling because of the free speech thing, period. She wants the seperation of church and state abolished. She resigned the Govenorship of Alaska, when it became clear that she could not bring religion to the state house. She says that her right to free speech means she should be able to use her religion in Governing decisions. The woman is right up there with the brain of an aeomeba

  8. David Gervais 3 Mar 2011, 6:53pm

    Read her quote again… what she is really doing is using the hook of the Supreme Court and WBC to hang her own issue on, that is “…we can’t invoke God’s name in public square.”

    She is a skilled media whore using any attention getting hook to promote herself.

  9. Mark Farrugia 3 Mar 2011, 7:37pm

    God accepts, loves etc everyone. God doesn’t hate anyone. It is us human beigns who hate, doesn’t tolerate etc. For us human beings what is still unclear, not sure etc we are afraid from it and judge that being gay is a disease but far from it. If there’s something wrong in being gay so how come God permits this to happen in nature? There’s nothing wrong being gay it’s not our choice to be gay but it’s nature, our genes. And more over God is love so how can one pin point his/her finger and says that being gay is intrinsically evil after all we are made from the fruit of love

  10. bicoastal 3 Mar 2011, 8:40pm

    Exactly, David

    All this noise about those nasty church members… the NOISE is over the fact that they are demonstrating at funerals. As for the fact that we (gays) have to put up with this kind of crap daily in all media… it doesn’t bother the mourners in the least. In fact I am quite certain many of the mourners indeed feel the same about gays as does Westboro. It’s the fact that Westboro is raining on their (funeral) parade that upsets them.

    SO, in a perverted kind of way I am glad the court decided as they did. Let the general public endure for a few hours what we gays endure daily, mainly blind hatred, animosity and hatred not to mention physical violence!!!

  11. Poor journalism from PN yet again. I’ve had to look elsewhere to see what Palin was really saying (not the first time I’ve had to do that thanks to sloppy scribes).

    Mark Farrugia

    If you’d like to show the proof of how God loves everyone, that’d be nice. But unfortunately, whilst your statement might be supporting us, your references to God and what he apparently ‘feels’ are as unsubstantiated and irrational as those who tell us God hates gays. The more you bleat on about him loving gays, the more Westboro nutjob types will ram it down our throats about how much he hates us.

    We need to leave this whole God business out of human rights, it’s holding us back on both sides. And it does exactly the opposite of focusing on humans – it focuses on something that isn’t.

  12. Lucius Malfoy 3 Mar 2011, 9:42pm

    Everything was hunky dory as long as those lunatics only picketed some queers funerals. The right wing nut jobs had no problem in defending WBC’s right to protest at that time. The first amendment was only surpassed by the bible itself back then. Suddenly it’s a total different ball game…

  13. Ahhh good old America hay “we have freedom of speech” (but not if we dissagree with it ) we live in a free country (but not if you are gay, black or an athiest) they love their “free ” things but they dont know that it means everything I think what they do is sick but America has the 1st amendment and it cant be conditional

  14. Danny Haszard 3 Mar 2011, 10:01pm

    Jehovah’s Witnesses pursued court decisions to get in your face at the door steps,these same actions uphold rights of infamous hate church.
    —-
    Danny Haszard http://www.dannyhaszard.com
    my page more on Jehovah’s Witnesses harassment

    1. Paddyswurds 3 Mar 2011, 10:50pm

      …..i love it when the jehovahs witnesses’s call. I invite them in, sit them down , shut the living room door and stand behind it and get stuck into them. The last ones i got at were a couple of women from England .They were visibly squirming in their seats. Oh, make them tea and put vinegar or some such in it and see them visibly gag as well. The best bit of craic i had with my clothes on in years. Thoroughly enjoyed it. It also helps if you keep a copy of the bible earmarked with all the juicy bits ready to be thrown at them. make sure you let them know your queer and throw in a few details of that and what you most enjoy. Brilliant. Can’t wait for another visit.

  15. As much as i disagree with all these religious bigots and their stupid opinions, I support their freedom of speech and their right to offend. Because it equally supports my right to offend them back.

  16. radical53 4 Mar 2011, 1:19am

    It shows up the double standards and hypocrisy of America’s Constitution and the first amendment on “Free Speech.”

    This church is allowed to vilify and protest about gays and soldiers serving the cause for America, but Freedom of Speech does not apply to the soldier detained for leaking America’s sensitive information to wikileaks. Says a lot about who and what is allowed to be written and said in the name of Freedom of Speech and Information.

    1. Exactly – and the USA does not have freedom of speech because you aren’t allowed free rein to be racist. The Govt controls exactly how ‘free’ your speech is. They love the principle of it but hate the reality if it doesn’t suit them.

    2. Mike Steven 6 Mar 2011, 10:07am

      Completely right. I belive that sexuality is something that is part of you, just like the colour of your skin or the size of your feet. You are born with it and it develops with you.

      Religion on the other hand is a choice, and as such the constitution of your country should protect you for being who you are before giving audience to someones beliefs about it.

      You have the freedom to be an individual and so do they (regrettably) but if it is any consilation just remember the difference between Hitler and Shirley Plelps…. Shirley has a better moustache

  17. Jock S. Trap 4 Mar 2011, 5:19am

    If Palin goes for Presidency it’ll be the quickest anyones ever explored the possiblity of mass space travel. I think people we’ll have to look further than just moving country.

  18. 1 – Religious fundamentalists
    2 – Anti-federal pro-states’ rights constitutionalists
    3 – Assorted jingoes
    4 – Generally nice folk who are upset by shouting rude things at funerals but don’t think about the implications for liberty of trying to ban it.
    - Sarah considers all these people part of her natural constituency and is not clever enough to make a decent job of hiding the incoherence and hypocrisy this leads her into.

  19. Wow, the woman is an idiot!

    The point of this court case, dear Sarah, is that you absolutely CAN invoke God’s name in the public square.

    What YOU are objecting to is that you cannot LEGISLATE based on your religious beliefs.

    The fact that you don’t understand the simplest little bit of how the first amendment works makes me wonder how you even got to be a mayor in the backwoods of Alaska, and fear for our country in that you think you could handle the job of President.

    1. Mike Steven 6 Mar 2011, 10:02am

      I think for her the job of tying her shoelaces without invoking God into the issue is too much to hope for, let alone giving her one of the worlds superpowers to control.

      She will have you all spending 12 hours a day praying and a further 6 copying pages from the bible to send to the free world and to make sure the message sinks in.

      I hope for your sakes she doesn’t get into power.

  20. Presumably this means that any nutcase may now use the bible to support mindless bigotry? “God hates blacks. That’s why the bible condones slavery”. I wonder how long these imbeciles would survive if that was their message? Personally, I hope they continue their vile demonstrations. As someone who longs for the final demise of organised religion, I believe this bunch of loonies has done more to discredit christianity than has any abusing priest scandal. Indeed, conspiracy theorists may speculate that the ‘gay Mafia’ is funding the protests!

  21. Everyone knows the Westboro Baptist Church are unbalanced homophobic extremists who are a disgrace to the teachings of Christ. The more they spread their “God hates fags” lies, the more likely moderate people will have sympathy for gays and anyone else they target. Their Christian “charity” is restricted to members of their own “church”. Starving children in Africa wouldn’t rate and would be written off as destined for hell. The Theroux TV documentary on the Phelps family gave an excellent overview of their nastiness.

  22. Mike Steven 6 Mar 2011, 9:59am

    The WBC are not much better than terrorists, in fact, as their goal is to convert people to their way of thinking using violence, all be it psychological, they are in the terms of the word terrorists.

    Terrorists thrive on attention and if no one pays any attention to them or their cause then they have no power at all, they become lonesome individuals who still have their protected rights. The thing to remember is they have a right to free speech, they do not have a right to make you and I listen to it or believe it.

    If the media stopped giving them airtime, and people just boycotted anything connected to them then the US would be a happier place.

    I live in the UK but have friends in the US, and it is not like me to comment on things like this, but I felt the need to make the points I have and also to state to everyone that the WBC are just sad individuals, who when alone are like cornered animals, that people listen and pay them attention is the fuel they so desperately crave.

  23. Gay America 6 Mar 2011, 8:59pm

    I wonder why GLTB people don’t go and protest outside of these horrendous Westboro churches? In fact, everyone who believes in Free Speech should find out where these so called, ‘churches’ are located and picket them all day. We can carry signs that say things like, “God Hates A-Holes! He Told Me So Himself” and, “Fags Hate You!”

  24. de Villiers 7 Mar 2011, 2:16pm

    I have no issue with many elements of personal religion and disagree with much of how religion is mischaracterised as being “pixie in the sky”. However, religion is a personal matter and shared space should be governed by secularity.

    Insofar as these protests are concerned, the issue of freedom of expression is only the first step. Such a right does not exist in a vacuum in order to allow all unpleasant and defamatory behaviour.

    The exercise of this freedom carries within it duties and responsibilities. It can and should be subject to conditions as are necessary in a democracy in the interests of national security, public safety or the prevention of crime or disorder.

    The United States, as with other things, takes a liberté sauvage approach and appears to perform little balancing exercise. In nearly every other European country, this protest would not be permitted. I would doubt that countries such as the UK and France are materially less “free” than the United States.

    1. PumpkinPie 8 Mar 2011, 6:19pm

      I’m totally in agreement with this. There is a fine line between freedom of speech and things such as verbal abuse and bullying. Picketing funerals is a “right” I think any country could gladly do without.

      If anybody in disagreement responds to this without a slippery slope fallacy, I’ll be impressed.

  25. Free speech, we dont have it in the UK.
    There will always be bigots, how they affect us is the real issue.
    Too many times in history, imformation, news,knowledge have been restricted.
    Thats the upside of free speech.
    For all its faults, is it not better that ALL may speak freely.

    1. Regarding free speech in the UK, I was threatened with arrest last year if I did not remove a t-shirt bearing the words, “God Loves Everyone … Even Smug, Hypocritical Bigots”. Ironic really, given that I support free speech, which includes the right of prejudiced bigots to carry signs saying that God hates me, or that I will burn in hell because of my sexuality.

  26. Dear God THIS is the Apocolype: I agree with Sarah Palin. What has the world come to

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all