Albert Snyder vs. Westboro Baptist Church (Supreme Court Case)

Thank you for accepting. My opponent states that "The right to protest should always prevail over a simple funeral procession." This is not a simple funeral procession, but a right to privacy and the a right to grieve and mourn. This funeral was not open to them, for the record. According to http://www.npr.org..., they were ordered to stand 1,000 feet away from the funeral. However, the father of the fallen soldier stated, ""The Phelpses took away my last moment with him on Earth. ... They tarnished his funeral." However, these few protesters made such an elaborate scene that the funeral procession had to be rerouted. Mr. Snyder says, "I shouldn't have to look away from anything at my own child's funeral. That's absurd." "They were essentially hijacking a private moment so they could command an audience," says Sean Summers, Snyder's lawyer, who will represent him in the Supreme Court." "They turn funerals into a circus. They send out fliers in advance. There were ... state, local, county police; there were ambulances; there were fire trucks; there was a SWAT team," Summers says. "The reality was, the funeral was disrupted like no private funeral should ever be disrupted." In this, the Church was not observing the funeral, but desecrating it. The argument of the federal appeals court is virtually nonexistant, for there was no final decision, and it is not conclusive evidence for this debate. The Supreme Court must decide which constitutional right is supreme in this case, since both overlap (due to the passive-aggressive insertion of the Church to have their protest as close to the funeral as possible with those signs that condemn him and praise his death.) You admit yourself these are signs of hate. For what purpose was this but to be a verbal missle to target an already emotionally distressed audience? The government is obligated, above all else to "ensure domestic tranquility". This is not the way. It was the intentional harm to mar the funeral, memory, and right to grieve to the most extreme and unforgivable extent that is unjust. You state, "Eventhough the church did protest it was up to Snyder to bury his son there. The westboro baptist had set up a picket line almost a mile down the road towards the cemetary. Any emotional sickness that was caused by the protest was in due, part Snyder's choice." No, they were ordered to stand 1,000 feet away from the funeral, not a mile, not the 5,280 that it takes to make a mile. The emotional sickness you claim Mr. Snyder chose was brought by the death of his son, by his son's sacrifice so that others can have the right to walk over his grave and state that he will burn in Hell for defending a country that tolerates homosexuals. However, he also died for the right of human privacy and the right to grieve. These Church members have done this at over 44,000 funerals. *(http://www.foxnews.com...) Their signs stated things like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Hates Fa*gs," and "You're Going to Hell." This was posted, 1000 feet away from the funeral! They claim to support civil-obediance, but they cause an international uproar by misconstruing rights like this? It is not possible. =Conclusion= The Church has the right to protest, but it should not overlap and pervade the right to grieve. What they did is, by the majority, morally repugnant and this act has created physical illness because it is so disturbing, so heartless and cruel. The soldier died for the rights of others, protecting the very picketers who stomped all over his memory , waving signs for him to burn in Hell while they emotionally tormented his family.