Can there be a better argument against homophobic religious dogmas?
This religious group in the US protests at military funerals saying that
the dead American soldiers deserved to die since they were protecting a
nation which tolerates homosexuals. The SC in America ruled, because of
the First Amendment (right to free speech), that the members of that
homophobic church had a right to protest.
Here is the article in CNN.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html#
<http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html#\
>

How sick can religions get?
Regards,
Deephttp://gaynotes.blogspot.com



Anti-gay church's right to protest at military funerals is upheld
Washington (CNN) -- A Kansas church that attracted nationwide attention
for its angry, anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military
members has won its appeal at the Supreme Court, an issue testing the
competing constitutional rights of free speech and privacy.

The justices, by an 8-1 vote, said Wednesday that members of Westboro
Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based
message on public matters such as wars. The father of a fallen Marine
had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted
harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of
both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the
facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker,"
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

At issue was a delicate test between the privacy rights of grieving
families and the free speech rights of demonstrators, however disturbing
and provocative their message. Several states have attempted to impose
specific limits on when and where the church members can protest.

The church, led by pastor Fred Phelps, believes God is punishing the
United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events including
soldiers' deaths. Members have traveled the country shouting at grieving
families at funerals and displaying such signs as "Thank God for dead
soldiers," "God blew up the troops" and "AIDS cures fags."

Westboro members had appeared outside the 2006 funeral for Lance Cpl.
Matthew Snyder in Westminster, Maryland, outside Baltimore.

Snyder's family sued the church in 2007, alleging invasion of privacy,
intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. A
jury awarded the family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8
million in punitive damages, which were later reduced to $5 million.

The church appealed the case in 2008 to a federal appeals court, which
reversed the judgments a year later, siding with the church's
allegations that its First Amendment rights were violated.

Albert Snyder, Matthew's father, said his son was not gay and the
protesters should not have been at the funeral.

"I was just shocked that any individual could do this to another human
being," Snyder told CNN last fall. "I mean, it was inhuman."

In an afternoon news conference Wednesday, Snyder expressed surprise at
the ruling.

"My first thought was that eight justices don't have the common sense
that God gave a goat," he said. "We found out today that we can no
longer bury our dead in this county with dignity."

He added, "What is this country coming to?"

Margie Phelps, a member of the Westboro clan and an attorney who argued
the case before the high court, told CNN the ruling was "10 times better
than I had hoped for."

"You can't use the subject that your feelings are hurt to trump public
debate," she said. If that were the case, "where would we be?" She
promised that with this ruling in hand, Westboro Baptist would conduct
more such pickets.

Church members say their broader message is aimed at the unspecified
actions of the military and those who serve in it. They believe U.S.
soldiers deserve to die because they fight for a country that tolerates
homosexuality.

Roberts in his opinion noted the Snyder family was not a "captive
audience" to the protests that were conducted several hundred yards
away.

"Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service," wrote Roberts.
"Snyder could see no more than the tops of the signs when driving to the
funeral. And there is no indication that the picketing itself in any way
interfered with the funeral itself."

Based on that the court concluded Snyder could not collect damages from
Westboro.

But the chief justice showed little sympathy for the message Westboro
promotes.

"Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might
feel the same about Westboro. Westboro's funeral picketing is certainly
hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible," he
said. However, "As a nation we have chosen a different course -- to
protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not
stifle public debate."

The ruling was a narrow one, dealing with the specific, unusual facts of
this appeal. Such vocal protests at military funerals are almost
entirely confined to this one small group. Roberts said on the free
speech question, it was enough to rely on "limited principles that sweep
no more broadly than the appropriate context of the instant case."

Only Justice Samuel Alito dissented. He said the church's "outrageous
conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the court now compounds that
injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong
he suffered," he said. "In order to have a society in which public
issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to
allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner."

The Supreme Court has never addressed the specific issue of laws
designed to protect the "sanctity and dignity of memorial and funeral
services," as well as the privacy of family and friends of the deceased.
But the high court has recognized the state's interest in protecting
people from unwanted protests or communications while in their homes.

The justices were being asked to address how far states and private
entities like cemeteries and churches can go to justify picket-free
zones and the use of "floating buffers" to silence or restrict the
speech or movements of demonstrators exercising their constitutional
rights in a funeral setting.

A majority of states across the nation have responded to the protests
with varying levels of control over the Westboro church protesters. In
Wednesday's case, 48 states and dozens of members of Congress filed an
amicus brief in support of the Snyders.

John Ellsworth, chairman of Military Families United, said the military
protects the First Amendment rights that members of Westboro Baptist use
to protest.

"Gold Star families deserve the respect of a grateful nation, not hate
from a group who chooses to demonstrate during the funeral of their
loved one," he said. "My family has been on the receiving end of their
hate and I assure all Gold Star families, this group is an anomaly and
your sacrifice does not go without notice."

Church members told the court they have a duty to protest and picket at
certain events, including funerals, to promote their religious message:
"That God's promise of love and heaven for those who obey him in this
life is counterbalanced by God's wrath and hell for those who do not
obey him."

The congregation is made up mostly of Fred Phelps and his family. The
pastor has 13 children, and at least 54 grandchildren and seven
great-grandchildren.

He described himself as an "old-time" gospel preacher in a CNN interview
in 2006, saying, "You can't preach the Bible without preaching the
hatred of God."

Church members have participated in several hundred protests across the
country.

In 2009, the high court blocked Missouri's effort to enforce a specific
law aimed at the Westboro church. Phelps, daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper
and other church members had protested near the August 2005 funeral of a
soldier in St. Joseph, Missouri. State lawmakers later passed the "Spc.
Edward Lee Myers Law," criminalizing picketing "in front of or about" a
funeral location or procession.

The case decided Wednesday is Snyder v. Phelps (09-751).

Reply via email to