One of the most successful actions taken against this group is to use their own protests to raise financial support for the LGBT community (to the WBC's chagrin), forcing the WBC to discontinue their protests. The work we do to fight against this group is paying off, with some pretty high-profile members (remember this group is mostly made up of family members) leaving the "church."
The loudest voices are the ones that are successful at spreading a message. So I ask you this, do you want those voices heard to be the ones for intolerance, and hatred? Or do you want the voices you hear crying out advocating for peace, and love? A dozen or so WBC protesters show up at a funeral or event that they object to, in response, hundreds of counter protesters drown out their voices of hatred with voices of love.
And you know something, I also think this 9-year-old boy has it right:
Do you think he should have stayed at home and remained silent too? His counter-protest, this simple displaying of a message that God hates no one, has received national attention. Sounds to me like his voice was the louder one, and it was the voice of the WBC that was drowned out that day.
By entertaining, I meant giving the WBC and their actions coverage. That's what I meant by ignoring them. Not coverage to those who oppose them. Don't publicize the WBC's actions repeatedly, but rather the response. So, yes I do want those voices to be heard. That's not who I want to stay silent.
I see the WBC revelling in and feeding off of the media coverage they receive. I know there are actions that oppose them, but I often don't see them. In the news I just see "WBC did such-and-such" not "There was a protest against them" or whatever other positives you listed above. That's what I meant. By strictly having that kind of coverage (the negative), you're entertaining their needs as it were. That's what they live for.
Perhaps doesn't relate 100% to this story, as this is about a counter-measure. But at the same time it's like... oh boy another WBC thread.