786
787

1%'s Motorcycle Club stop WBC protests...guess a beatdown is scarier than the wrath of God (imgur.com)

submitted ago by XzentraediX

all 175 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]Tripl5EsouL 115 points116 points ago

Patriot Guard Riders

[–][deleted] 57 points58 points ago

This needs to be up-voted more. These guys aren't 1%'s, they aren't outlaws. They're ex-service members providing a support/charity structure for the community. They've taken an interest in WBC's bullshit and are actively counter-protesting.

Like other similar motorcycle clubs oriented towards the community they don't approve of violent behabiour. They aren't thugs. But the stigma that goes with a man on a motorbike wearing black leather lends to their ability to shut down the WBC quite well.

[–]Unimagine7 10 points11 points ago

Not the Patriot Guard Riderswho posted this: "However, the PGR is not a counter protest group. Our mission statement is clear and regrettably the circumstances surrounding this tragic event do not fall within our mission statement."

[–]XzentraediX[S] 1 point2 points ago

You're 100% correct, I saw a few things on facebook from multiple MCs and just riding groups in general urging people to go make a stand at the funeral and show their support

[–]XzentraediX[S] 4 points5 points ago

Not all of them are 1%ers....a good bit were....it was a bunch of MC's, 1%ers included

[–]Funkenwagnels 0 points1 point ago

if you have a bike you can join them. pretty sure you don't have to be a former service member.

[–]thescrapplekid 2 points3 points ago

Sometimes they are joined by "outlaw" clubs

[–]Captain_Reseda 1 point2 points ago

Nope. They are occasionally joined by other motorcycle clubs, but not outlaw clubs. PGR also rides for law enforcement funerals and the 1% clubs won't support anyone who supports LEO.

[–]alternateangel 1 point2 points ago

not many people know this, but the Patriot Guard, like WBC, is also from Kansas.

[–]yeathl 17 points18 points ago

These men, no matter their creed, are correct!

[–]thegreenscare 11 points12 points ago

if you have a link explaining what's going on that would be cool.

[–]XzentraediX[S] 6 points7 points ago

friend took a picture of these guys basically lining the streets to make sure no one would picket.

[–]99Future 10 points11 points ago

Some motorcycle dudes, not necessarily a criminal gang.

[–]GoldenWaffles 5 points6 points ago

The WBC has the right to picket. These guys also have the right to stand there to making picketing look like a terrible idea.

[–]grenadesonfire 20 points21 points ago

If there intention was to block the WBC, that's called a peaceful protest and they have as much right to that as anyone has to Freespeech. If there intention was to pummel the WBC well that's not a right, but I wouldn't stop them if they did.

[–]XzentraediX[S] 7 points8 points ago

Exactly what they did...there was no protest...I don't know what their intentions were if there was.

[–]thyhorrorcosmic 6 points7 points ago

intimidation

[–]iamoverrated 0 points1 point ago

I think it was to respect the dead... not intimidation.

[–]amsay56 6 points7 points ago

even if it was intimidation, that's fine-- there was no actual violence. a bouncer is only an meant to intimidate until certain lines are crossed. The 1%ers were bouncers, (rightfully) intimidating the WBC, challenging them to cross the line with the knowledge of what would happen if they did. This was an intimidation issued in the same manner as a bouncer-- not with the hope that the hostiles would step up to the challenge, but the knowledge that the presence of a big scary guy will prevent hostile behavior, while being prepared for it should it come.

[–]Saren_Arterius 43 points44 points ago

We all know WBC have a right to speak freely. They have a right to be heard. They have a right to picket that funeral. They have a right to be nuclear-grade assholes, it's in the constitution, and I will defend, to the death, their right to be assholes. But, unfortunately, especially in very specific situations (like this), there comes a time for we as Americans to draw the fucking line.

I approve of Anonymous waging their little cyber warfare campaign, and I approve of the 1%ers threatening physical violence. I agree with the myriad of average Americans threatening this, that and the other.

I learned a long time ago the only way to stop a bully and to stop someone being a dicks is NEVER through proper channels. You don't snitch because that results in only one thing. More bullying. You don't tell mommy, you don't tell the principle, you don't tell the ACLU and you don't tell the president. All you do is make their case stronger. You lure them out back with your friends and you make them feel the pain. The only way to beat a dick is to be a bigger dick.

The WBC is using the Constitution as a loophole. They know they cannot be restricted from speaking, so they vow to take it to its farthest logical limit. I may have no right to not be offended, but I have every right to tell you to fuck off, and make every physical and legal effort to motivate you to do so. Just because it's a right, does not make it right.

[–]tomjen 20 points21 points ago

They have a right to speak, but absolutely no right whatsoever to be heard. This is an important thing to remember.

[–]cballowe 3 points4 points ago

The first amendment is understood to grant the right to be heard. That's not the same thing as a right to force others to hear. Also, 1A only limits what government can do ("Congress shall make no laws ..."). What private individuals do is only an issue if they violate other laws.

[–]Oddgenetix 12 points13 points ago

This This This.

The WWBC's weapon of choice is the law, and they are skilled with it. I think in some weird way groups like them are inadvertently tipping the scale, causing right-minded people to want laws to protect them from the free speech, freedom of assembly, and numerous other rights hate groups use to further their message. Those are our rights to, and we can't give evil people a reason to erode precious freedom.

The "Breast Cancer Show Ever" episode of south park painted a weirdly accurate picture of this. After all else had failed, after cartman had used the law (or school officials) to prevent the beat down and keep saying what he wanted to say, she just kicked the shit out of him.

I'm not saying physical violence is the answer, but I love that so many groups are beginning to stand up against them, creating human walls that mute the deafening bullshit they spew.

When they protested at Dio's funeral, a bunch of us Angelinos showed up and sang "holy diver" at their ear-drums for quiet some time. It felt good. The only people who really heard their protest were the news cameras that went and found them. They were lost in a sea of unsympathetic metalheads. I bet our body odor alone nearly drove them away. thousands of people who rarely shower all standing in the LA heat wearing nothing but black? not a good combo. I'm sure Dio wouldn't have been concerned with their presence anyway.

[–]Knight of /newdumnezero 4 points5 points ago

We all know WBC have a right to speak freely. They have a right to be heard.

To speak and to be heard are very different things

[–]Naillesbot 1 point2 points ago

The only way to beat a dick

Actually, that's not the proper route, and I'm glad most people recognize this. If this was the policy, I'd hate to be in the USA since I'm an atheist. There are better, albeit longer and less savage ways of dealing with this.

[–]Knight of /newNukeThePope -2 points-1 points ago

For what it's worth, I'm on your side. The people who downvoted you are part of the reason I'm afraid to return to the US.

[–]moun6776 4 points5 points ago

I swear I have seen this comment somewhere before...

Edit: word choice

[–]Knight of /newNukeThePope 0 points1 point ago

Comment, you mean. Yo, I wanted to be fair and compliment all the sane contributors to this post. All... 4 or 5 of them.

[–]thyhorrorcosmic 0 points1 point ago

yeah, because diplomacy won the american revolution. :/

[–]EvilAnagram 0 points1 point ago

Apparently people opposed to your point of view aren't welcome here, but if we only allow freedom of speech when it fits within a narrow framework of welcome speech, we don't have freedom of speech. I am an absolutist when it comes to the first amendment, and any attempt to limit someone's freedom of speech through violence and intimidation is abhorrent in my eyes. I don't care if someone is a bigot, a holocaust denier, or a NAMBLA representative; they all deserve the right to speak their mind, and in listening to what they say I am able to form better positions in opposition to them.

[–]DoxBox 8 points9 points ago

They have a right to say whatever they want.

They don't have a right to an audience. Nobody's stopping them from saying what they want; but they can't force others to accommodate them, including by disrupting human walls.

[–]EvilAnagram 0 points1 point ago

I agree completely.

[–]XzentraediX[S] 2 points3 points ago

I think the key to remember is nothing happened....no one showed up with guns and knives, just simply a wall of people. I think showing up with a group of people with signs spouting hate speech is just as bad as a group showing up to threaten them. Words are words until actions are taken, which they weren't, so I consider this a win/win.

[–]EvilAnagram 1 point2 points ago

No, showing up to threaten them is worse because you are using the threat of violence to curtail another's rights.

[–]Msj2705 1 point2 points ago

Yet if we disallow those with unpopular opinions to be heard, then what happens when you yourself have an unpopular opinion that you may not express? Freedom of speech at that point would become freedom of popular speech, and would mean nothing at all.

[–]Karvattatus -2 points-1 points ago

There I see an example of the reasons why I perceive the American conception of freedom as hypocritical. This Westboro thing couldn't exist anywhere else because they negate a very basic human thing which the respect of people that just lost a loved one. Still, in the US, "they have the right to express themselves". Shit, no ! How did your political culture got that twisted that you are protected by law when you spit your hatred on other people as a hobby ?

Our past here in Europe with fascism taught us that there is some point where action has to be taken against hatred, be it through arrests because of hate encouragement (don't know the legal expression, sorry) or other ways in extreme cases.

Understand me : I'm a pacifist because I know violence never creates anything, but I'm not a willing victim. A friend of mine passed away a month ago : if for some reason someone had done something like these Westboro people at his funerals there would have been blood. Saying you wouldn't do something like this in that sort of occasion means in my opinion that you are either hypocritical or just hiding your absence of courage behind pacifism.

[–]Msj2705 0 points1 point ago

Talking about twisted politics and then proclaim yourself to be a pacifist who is okay with bleeding another person out of anger.

But no, this example is not twisted. Freedom is freedom for all, even those who we don't like.

This is not hypocritical. This is not cowardice. This is only what it is; equality of the law as it applies to all persons. It would only be hypocritical if this freedom only applied to certain people.

[–]LandShark805 0 points1 point ago

Do you even watch the news?? Not just in America but in Europe?

[–]angrydeuce -2 points-1 points ago

It's one thing to voice an unpopular viewpoint...it's something entirely different to hurt people in the attempt to goad them into violence so you can have your in-house lawyers sue them for eleventy-billion dollars for your "pain and suffering".

These people aren't trying to advance a goddamned viewpoint because anyone but a mouth-breathing retard would recognize that their current antics do anything but advance their views. You don't bring people over to your side by antagonizing them. No, this is about two things: media exposure, and inciting violence for profit. Their "message" is a smokescreen designed to be as shocking as possible towards those ends.

This is why the methods employed above are the best way to deal with their bullshit. If you so much as breathe on these guys you're looking at accusations of assault and a litany of lawsuits, but there ain't shit stopping you from standing right there next to them and drowning them out. First Amendment goes both ways, baby.

Now we just need some lawyers on our side to litigate these fuckwads out of existence. Hopefully once they lose tax-exempt status the IRS can come digging around into their finances and start throwing some of these fuckers in Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison.

[–]venku122 1 point2 points ago

But they aren't 1%'s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Guard_Riders The patriot guard riders are made up of veterans who ride to funerals to protect the families from the WBC protests. They aren't 1%'s. They probably aren't even 10%'s. Stop with this pointless sensationalism.

[–]snmnky9490 0 points1 point ago

The 1% is in regards to an older statement by someone having to do with motorcycles (I forget who) saying that 99% of bikers are law abiding citizens, and it's the 1% of them that give the rest a bad name. While this is actually the law abiding group of PGR, I think OP didn't know who exactly they were and assumed that there was some non-law-abiding about to go down

OP is not saying that they're wealthy aristocrats

[–]FireReadyAim -1 points0 points ago

Well, they aren't the patriot guard, because the patriot guard concern themselves with military funerals.

[–]EvilAnagram 2 points3 points ago

It does not matter how deeply you disagree with another's point of view or how vile their doctrine; you do not have the right to use violence to infringe on their right to free speech. How can anyone justify moral outrage at the imprisonment of atheists in Egypt while supporting the use or threat of violence to silence those with whom they disagree? The people supporting these bikers while demanding the end of discrimination against atheists are nothing but hypocrites.

That said, if the OP is mistaken and this is a picture of the Patriot Guard, who peacefully counter-protest to protect the funerals of those the WBC targets, then these men are heroes. Peaceful assembly is fine, but violence and intimidation are the tactics of terrorists and barbarians.

[–]XzentraediX[S] 9 points10 points ago

Sorry...to explain whats going on, 1%ers line the street around the funeral to make sure no one would protest the funerals.

To be honest they have every right to picket, just like these people have every right to beat the shit out of them...getting away with it and no punishment? No, but doing so and facing the music...sure why not.

[–]Knight of /newdumnezero 2 points3 points ago

Actually assault is a felony

[–]XzentraediX[S] 0 points1 point ago

"getting away with it and no punishment? No"

We're aware of that thank you.

[–]Knight of /newdumnezero 3 points4 points ago

I'm just trying to point out that the threat of violence is not ok, as you suggest in the title and comments.

If you want to fuck with the WBC, you have to play more on their level, so walls are ok. Myself, I would go with big speakers and plenty of metal.

[–]XzentraediX[S] 0 points1 point ago

Any event with metal is a great event haha

[–]Jim-Jones 0 points1 point ago

Like the NRA did to two protestors? Not to mention forcible confinement and kidnapping. O J Simpson got 20 years for the same thing.

[–]BangsNaughtyBits 3 points4 points ago

No, no one has a right to beat ANYONE.

Certainly not for merely disagreeing with the consensus view. Apply this logic to atheists the next time they hold an unpopular view and be glad this is not a country like that which you describe.

!

[–]deadcellplus 4 points5 points ago

perhaps in self defense....

generally speaking however it should probably be avoided

idk why you got so many downvotes :(

[–]BangsNaughtyBits 2 points3 points ago

The WBC know how to push primal buttons in the human psyche. Rational has little to do with it now.

!

[–]Naillesbot 5 points6 points ago

I'm truly amazed that you are so downvoted for this --and in all places: r/atheism, the so-called humanists.

[–]XzentraediX[S] 2 points3 points ago

Improper wording on my part, but hopefully you got the gist of what I was getting at. You're right that no one has the right to harm another, I think if you're willing to dive into that deep of waters, you need to be prepared to face what might lurks beneath the surface. We can be logical and proper, but I feel that people have their limits. I'm just glad to see that even 1%'s rallied to support the families in their own special way.

[–]eyesofbob 0 points1 point ago

Your rewording of the "gist" sounds exactly the same. Ok, maybe the threat of physical violence is more veiled..."dive into that deep of waters"..."what might lurks [sic]"

We have freedom of speech. We do not have freedom of physical violence. Adults are supposed to be able to know by now, sticks and stones blah blah but words will never hurt me.

I think the WBC group is abhorrent, but people who are willing to inflict violence on non-violent folks are a much bigger threat to society.

[–]voodoochild8080 6 points7 points ago

I think what he is saying is... if you act like a dick, regardless of if it is your right to do so, be prepared for someone to beat your ass for it. Having an unpopular opinion is one thing. Protesting funerals (and I'm assuming this is the children at Sandy Hook) is just a dick thing to do.

[–]aab720 2 points3 points ago

It happens to atheists in the middle east all the time.

[–]XzentraediX[S] 6 points7 points ago

Well I feel like the whole threat to society is coming from a "by the book" perspective, so agree to disagree. I think people who are willing to condemn innocent children and show an utter lack of remorse are a bigger threat. To each their own I suppose :)

[–]EvilAnagram 2 points3 points ago

People who shout and insult and vie for attention are not a threat to society. People who seek to silence voices through violence or the threat of violence are a threat to society.

[–]XzentraediX[S] -1 points0 points ago

Everything already happened, there was no violence and nothing came of it. Blame intimidation, blame common sense, I consider it a win/win where they didn't picket and they didn't get hurt....they being the WBC.

The whole point of this was to be happy about a group coming together with often opposing view (different allegiances to different MC's) and in a non-violent way stopped, what most people consider, a fairly shitty topic to oppose

[–]EvilAnagram 1 point2 points ago

Your title implied that they were using the threat of violence to intimidate WBC. That is not a win for free speech.

[–]Knight of /newNukeThePope 1 point2 points ago

Well done on standing up to the OP's waffling for violence.

[–]BetYouCanNotTellMe 0 points1 point ago

Really? So if someone breaks into my house and attacks myself or my family I don't have the right to fight back? Because that is what your absolute statement says.

[–]BangsNaughtyBits 0 points1 point ago

Take you strawman and read the context of the thread.

!

[–]jabes101 2 points3 points ago

Soo... are these or are these not 1%ers? Cause if they aren't, you should not be labeling them as such.

[–]snmnky9490 1 point2 points ago

The 1% is in regards to an older statement by someone having to do with motorcycles (I forget who) saying that 99% of bikers are law abiding citizens, and it's the 1% of them that give the rest a bad name. While this is actually the law abiding group of Patriot Guard Riders (created specifically to block WBC protests), I think OP didn't know who exactly they were and assumed that there was some non-law-abiding about to go down

OP is not saying that they're wealthy aristocrats

[–]jtpuck 4 points5 points ago

Not the 1%ers. These are Patriot Guard Riders.

[–]thyhorrorcosmic 0 points1 point ago

false. its a mix of mc's including members of pgr

[–]Negro_Napoleon 1 point2 points ago

Might, doesn't necessarily make right.

[–]feedmenudels 1 point2 points ago

I sometimes wonder if these fucks aren't trolling us to accept one another and find a common enemy. We've got atheists, gays, Christians, bikers, the freaking KKK and a litany of other folks (I don't know litany that may be wrong) coming together with our disdain for this group. Obviously for different reasons, but at least we all know these are not acceptable people. Perhaps that's the first brick in the road of getting along. I may hate your beliefs, but at least you aren't WBC.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]tricks574 1 point2 points ago

I also support the right to free speech, but I'm still human, and despite my constitutional conviction, it would be a flat out lie to say I wouldn't enjoy hearing that the WBC was in some way assaulted by a gang of bikers.

[–]thegreenscare 13 points14 points ago

they are free to speak; that doesn't meant there wont be repercussions though. this is community reinforcement at its best.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points ago

100% agree. You're free to say whatever you want; the consequence of that may be that people attack you in some manner, or speak their own mind/demonstrate that disagreement with a protest of their own. WBC backed down because at the end of the day they don't believe their own bullshit. They want attention, not a confrontation that can become very real very quickly.

[–]iamoverrated 1 point2 points ago

I will fight for their rights just as much as any other person just as I will fight for the rights of this motorcycle club to counter-protest. :D

[–]bowteeful 0 points1 point ago

People have free speech but when you freely express your controversial opinions you should expect controversy. Like if someone went around saying they hated black people in a black neighborhood, you dont defend that. For me atleast, there is a limit on how much i can tolerate ignorance.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]bowteeful 0 points1 point ago

well the problem isnt exactly that i disagree with it, its that someones rights end the second it affects someone else. I can stretch my arms until i hit someone in the face, then there is a problem. so my point is that when someone brings these insanely controversial opinions that are directly pissing people off, there is a problem.

[–]SoundHound -1 points0 points ago

Why should people have to tolerate intolerance?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]freemike86 1 point2 points ago

No we don't and the aforementioned picture proves it.

[–]bowteeful 0 points1 point ago

Well heres the example i will give. I have the right to swing my arms. Now if i swing my arms into your face, then i have a problem. You bring up a good point that as much as we hate the WBC, we still need to give them freedom of speech, but we actually do have to tolerate it. By allowing it, people have to tolerate it.

[–]thyhorrorcosmic -1 points0 points ago

There's a fine line between bravery and stupidity.

[–]FiercelyFuzzy -3 points-2 points ago

It sounds like you don't understand what "free speech" means.

Just because you have the RIGHT to say something doesn't mean you should say it. Human decency is suppose to come in to play. If you still wish to say it, there most likely will be a reaction.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]FiercelyFuzzy 1 point2 points ago

The opposite of free speech is censorship.

Just because you have the RIGHT to say something doesn't mean someone doesn't have the RIGHT to kick your ass for saying it. Words have consequences.

[–]deadcellplus 3 points4 points ago

We have freedom of speech, not freedom of assault

if words are not sufficient to resolve the matters its probably not a civil matter... in which case i dont know if civility really matters anymore

[–]FiercelyFuzzy -3 points-2 points ago

Freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything you want.

Only fools think this.

[–]deadcellplus 0 points1 point ago

yes for example unprotected speech includes fighting words

what i dont get is why what they do isnt classified as fighting words....

[–]FiercelyFuzzy 0 points1 point ago

How is making a line between them and the mourning family censorship?

[–]deadcellplus 0 points1 point ago

well, is the speech protected?

if it is protected speech restricting their ability to exercise that freedom would be censorship

topic, subject, whatever doesnt matter. that is what living in a free society means, it doesnt become disallowed speech simply because we find it disgusting, etc

there are many things that can be done that these sickos are taking advantage of but being a fuckwit is not the correct answer

attacking them is not the correct answer unless provoked, i personally believe what they are doing is fighting words and im at a loss as to why the courts wouldnt agree

[–]FiercelyFuzzy 0 points1 point ago

They are not attacking them. They're intimidating them.

If you REALLY want to go in what is allowed, the bikers are most CERTAINLY allowed to stand there, it's public property. You saying they aren't allowed to stand there is....ironic.

[–]thyhorrorcosmic 0 points1 point ago

Your rights only protect you from the government.

[–]themcp 3 points4 points ago

Uh, bullshit. Your rights protect you from the government reacting to your exercise thereof in any way, but your rights also protect you from the citizenry reacting to you in certain specific ways too. If the government doesn't like what you say, they have to ignore it. If I don't like what you say, I can get angry and shout at you about it but I can't beat the crap out of you for it. If you threaten me that if I say certain things you will beat me up, you damned well can be charged with a civil rights violation for it.

[–]thyhorrorcosmic 2 points3 points ago

No those are laws. You should read the amendments, not a single one protects you from getting beat up.

[–]snmnky9490 0 points1 point ago

Pretty sure the Amendments to the Constitution are also LAWS. Also, who said we were only allowed to talk about amendments?

[–]thyhorrorcosmic -1 points0 points ago

False: the amendments are the rights of citizens that are protected by the constitution and are set up as guidelines so that laws aren't unconstitutional. And since we are using the term RIGHTS, we both made it about amendments only. Laws are not rights.

[–]Utenlok 0 points1 point ago

Sounds more like YOU don't understand what free speech means.

[–]NixonsGhost 2 points3 points ago

No, he knows exactly what free speech means, it's just that most people seem to think that free speech means you won't be held accountable for the things you say.

You absolutely have the freedom to say what you want, and people absolutely have the freedom to react to what you say.

[–]eyesofbob 3 points4 points ago

"people absolutely have the freedom to react to what you say."

not if their reaction is a beatdown, that is clearly illegal.

[–]Crensch 4 points5 points ago

And they'll be punished... if a jury of their peers decides to find them guilty.

[–]Knight of /newNukeThePope 4 points5 points ago

That's how people used to get away with lynching blacks.

[–]penisAlota 0 points1 point ago

what do you mean "used to"?

[–]Knight of /newNukeThePope 2 points3 points ago

Umm... Good point.

[–]penisAlota -1 points0 points ago

swim once saw a black man get punched in the face by a cop and then testified that the black man swung on the cop first

[–]themcp 0 points1 point ago

You clearly have no concept of what constitutes a lawful method of holding people accountable for what they say. Yes, if people say repulsive things you can shout at them or shun them or refuse to do business with them, but threatening them is not a lawful method of holding people accountable for what they say.

[–]FiercelyFuzzy 3 points4 points ago

I most certainly know that if I threaten someone in person, they have the right to call the police on me. Just because I have the RIGHT to say something doesn't mean I won't be accountable for my actions.

[–]nickayoub1117 3 points4 points ago

Someone should get those men awards.

[–]lakotian 1 point2 points ago

Was this for one of the Sandy Hook funerals or something else?

[–]XzentraediX[S] 1 point2 points ago

yes, sandy hook

[–]Dom960 1 point2 points ago

Sir your front right headlight is out

[–]XzentraediX[S] 0 points1 point ago

This is where I feel things have gotten out of hand. I understand the right to free speech, people are starting to talk about this threat like they showed up with maces and flails...This wasn't the opening scene of Gangs of New York, no blood was shed, not even close.

If you want to go picket and spew hate speech, I feel getting some verbal attacks back is warranted and fair. UNTIL the line is crossed(which it wasn't), I'm not going to fret about it and I'm glad their community was left with one less thing of bullshit on their plate to deal with.

[–]Goodrita 0 points1 point ago

Time to find the closest chapter.

[–]Captain_Reseda 0 points1 point ago

Patriot Guard is about as far as you can get from a 1% club. Think of them as a HOG chapter made up mostly of members who couldn't afford a Harley.

[–]Roy_Brown 0 points1 point ago

This is so much dumb bullshit I can't even express how much. Do you know why the WBC even exists? They make money off of people being butthurt that they exist, like you, who draw attention to it and sue them. Why do you think half of their family are practicing lawyers? The church has run and will continue to run off of litigation. The only way they stay alive is because people take what theya re saying to heart and get mad.

[–]LevyWasBri -2 points-1 points ago

As a 99%er: I approve. As a pacifist: ...meh

[–]99Future 0 points1 point ago

Occupy the 1%

[–]Getn67 -1 points0 points ago

Lets move from the legalese and state the obvious; bikers are awesome!

[–]PastorFredPhelps -3 points-2 points ago

No fear of a bunch of devil-worshipping bikers! God's wrath is something to be feared, not leather-wrapped fag-lovers on glorified bicycles! Have fun burning in hell! LOL

[–]lvs2wtch 0 points1 point ago

Telling an atheist they are going to burn in hell is like threatening that Santa Claus isn't bringing them a Christmas present you joke of a human being.

[–]PastorFredPhelps -1 points0 points ago

Santa Claus isn't real you devil-worshipping heathen!

[–]lvs2wtch 0 points1 point ago

Neither is god.

[–]PastorFredPhelps -1 points0 points ago

Oh you bet he is! Read the Bible and it's plain as day! You just harden your heart with your ignorance!

[–]lvs2wtch 0 points1 point ago

If I'm going to read fiction I prefer Stephen King or Tolkien if I want mythology.

Edit: the bible is a book. It is not evidence for or proof of god.