>>>>>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.

The problem is the (higher) courts are being stacked with liberals who very deliberately promote deviant/criminal actions at the expense of the law abiding population.