>>>>>Sure. They can say whatever they like at their 'church'.
>>>>
>>>>I said the same about invading public space with Christmas, but was overruled. So you can't have it both ways.
>>>
>>>"Merry Christmas" and Christmas trees are not designed to cause great emotional distress to anyone. If they do cause great emotional distress I suggest the person (persons) undergoing such distress jump under a speeding bus and end it all.
>>>
>>>These bas+urds involved in the case at hand are intentionally doing emotional harm.
>>
>>Hey that's a good point - which makes me think of something.... it's actually possible to sue someone for "emotional distress" http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/emotional+distress - perhaps someone will take up the cause.
>>
>>>>They should be tried under some murky law about hate speech or other verbal crime thing.
>
>I think that would be a very effective way to handle it. Since the deceased and their families are not public persons, I think they could find a good lawyer who could bankrupt the whackjobs. One of the tactics used very effectively against the Klan was exactly this.

hmmm...well I just read though some of the article linked in the original post & found this..."....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....." Well that kinda sucks hope someone else tries with a better argument.