I'm a non-attorney spokesperson

The Supreme Court of the US voted 8-1 this week in favor of allowing the folks of Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) to continue their protests at military funerals. Members of Westboro believe that somehow or another a military death is a pronouncement by God on America's acceptance of homosexuality. This is the church whose web address is www.godhatesfags.com. This SC decision has met with quite a dust-up from "conservatives." While I completely disagree with what WBC is doing, the SCOTUS made the correct decision. Conservatives seem to approach this with the argument that this is hurtful and offensive speech, correctly so. The protests are abominable, insensitive, and stupid. However, that is exactly the type of thing that is protected under the right to free speech and to assemble. Many conservatives feel the SC should have made what is often considered a "politically correct decision." Ah, the knife has two edges. It is also interesting that these conservatives would vehemently support a groups' right to protest an abortion clinic or the home of a sexual predator. Do we realize that someone on the other side surely is offended by these protests as well? Should we rely on the SCOTUS to determine which offensive speech is allowed and which isn't? If we're going to do it this way could we start by limiting Michael Moore? Already, in this country, there are pastors who have had legal brushes because they called homosexuality sin from the pulpit. The day is already here when having certain beliefs and sharing them can get you in legal trouble. A Christian can witness in an effort to convert a non-Christian and it may offend someone (Christ himself said that He would be an offense to some.). However, isn't this protected by the first amendment? It is supposed to be. The only valid legal argument I see for the plaintiff and dissenting opinion in this case is if WBC is protesting a private ceremony or service. No one has the right to invade a private ceremony on private land, e.g. a church otherwise privately, owned cemetery.

Already the SCOTUS limits religious freedoms. Polygamy is not allowed at all even as a religious practice. Navajo indians are not allowed to ingest hallucinogenic peyote as a part of their religious practice. Practitioners of Santeria are not allowed to sacrifice animals. Some Holiness groups have been banned from handling poisonous snakes as part of their religious services. It seems that the SC has already, in these instances, at least by their decisions inferred an invalidity to certain religious beliefs. Interestingly enough, Old Testament Judaism would not be protected in America.