Framing funeral protesters case in terms of religious exercise

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

A lawsuit against the anti-gay loons who picket military funerals will be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

In TV discussion the issue was reported as pitting the First Amendment rights of the protesters against the religious right of the family to conduct a dignified funeral service.

Unfortunately, the family has no such right. (Legally.) The right to Free Exercise of religion is a right secured against the government. The government can not gratuitously interfere with the funeral and that is where it stops. (Should the government arrest all protesters outside churches and religious functions?)

The government has no obligation to facilitate Free Exercise. The government just cannot interfere with it.

And, making a total hash of the thing, the protesters were, in addition to speaking, exercising their religion.

So any invocation of religion or religious liberties in this case is silly.

That said, the case involves a lawsuit between a family and the protesters. That isn't as unambiguous as if the government arrested all the protesters. And if there is a tort of intentional infliction of emotional harm it is not obvious that it is negated by the fact someone was exercising a right. So the case might not be quite as easy as it appears, or it may be.

[RainDog]

1. in other words...

the only way we have to fight back against these assholes is to physically surround them and isolate them from the grieving.

if enough people surrounded them, they could force the group to move or be trampled.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. No, the lawsuit may be valid

I am just saying that if it is valid it's not because a funeral has religious connotations.

The lawsuit would be about the same if they targeted a kid's birthday party rather than a funeral.

I heard some people discussing the case with an assumption that the case tests the family's religious right to have a funeral. But it doesn't. It tests the right of private people to seeks damages for behavior even if the behavior is within someone's rights.

Considering that publishing a book is highly protected yet private parties can sue the author of a book for libel it appears that this case is not as simple as just being a rights case.

[RainDog]

4. what is the tort of intentional emotional harm?

because if this is something that can stop these a-holes, I am all for it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. You can sue for certain types of injury

Some types of injury get tossed out of court because they're not considered legitimate. Suing over putting a curse on someone is probably not going anywhere.

You can sometimes sue over intentional infliction of emotional injury but it is always tricky because it comes down to suing someone for money because they hurt your feelings. (In this case the family was awarded $5 million for emotional injury.)

Sometimes hurt feelings are the worst pain we can experience, of course. But seeking money damages for being made to feel bad is always vague stuff. (And vague stuff leads to unpredictable law.)

Is that proper? It's not easy to say. Micheal Moore has hurt a lot of corporate executives feelings in his films and I do not doubt that they genuinely felt pain, but should they be able to sue Moore for money?

[jaxx]

3. Those assholes came here to a soldiers funeral.

With their signs and their kids and their hate. The local college anti war group was also at the funeral and surrounded the haters so that the family didn't have to see the signs and the nuts. I can't believe this group will be allowed to get by with this.......and then I think of the haters outside the clinics and know that they will be. Some times our system is convoluted towards the very bastards who make life miserable.

[Jim__]

6. Seems like we ought to be able to stop some things.

I know the issue of freedom of speech is difficult. But, somehow, we should be able to stop strangers from harrassing for political purposes people at a funeral.