March 3, 2011: A Pastoral Interpretation of the SCOTUS Ruling on Westboro Baptist

While this doesn't actually have a direct connection to analyzing the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) opinion in Albert Snyder, Petitioner v. Fred W. Phelps, Sr., et al., 562 U.S. 09-751 (2011), I do feel that it is very important for me to clarify my moral and spiritual objections to the actions of Westboro Baptist Church. What they have done is doctrinally unsound (what special revelation do they have to affirmatively make such claims for God?). Even if one were to accept their doctrinal position, their method of communication is thoroughly unprofitable and full of hate. That being said, I do support their right to the freedoms of speech and religion within the extant reasonable boundaries as ensured in this SCOTUS majority opinion.

I want to take here a brief look at the implications of this case for churches, ministers, and individual Christians in America.

The most obvious application from this perspective is that the First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of religion were upheld by SCOTUS. I think that this point is actually quite clear, and as such, I will belabor it no further.

A second point, one less obvious but of great import, is the impact that this decision has on mitigating the effect of hate speech laws on the right of individual citizens and religious groups to proclaim condemnation on those who participate in the sin of homosexuality as taught in the Bible. Chief Justice John Roberts, author of the binding majority opinion, navigated three key points to come to this legal decision:

• "The Westboro picketers carried signs that were largely the same at all three locations.They stated, for instance: ...'God Hates Fags,' 'You’re Going to Hell,' and 'God Hates You.'"1
• "Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro liable for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern, as determined by all the circumstances of the case."2
• "The 'content' of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of 'purely private concern.'”3

Pastors in America have begun to fear intrusions on their right to preach what the Bible says. Many believe that the current hate speech law (and likely future, based on slippery slope argumentation) allows for criminal and tort liability for such actions. This SCOTUS opinion should help provide a levy against such a tide. Chief Justice Roberts wrote this summarizing point: "While these messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy—are matters of public import. The signs certainly convey Westboro’s position on those issues, in a manner designed, unlike the private speech in Dun & Bradstreet, to reach as broad a public audience as possible. And even if a few of the signs—such as 'You’re Going to Hell' and 'God Hates You'—were viewed as containing messages related to Matthew Snyder or the Snyders specifically, that would not change the fact that the overall thrust and dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to broader public issues."4 If the signs and statements made by "Pastor" Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church are protected by the First Amendment, it is virtually unthinkable that preaching what the Bible says on the topic could now be interpreted as speech not subject to the same protection.

Certainly this is not a complete ablution of the law in protecting homosexuality from hate speech, but it does give priority to the First Amendment and recognizes the line of free speech on a topic of moral significance to the nation and the individual / religious organization. Churches, ministers, and individual Christians still should not engage in verbally targeting individuals suspected of involvement in the practice, and they should know that such actions are not legally protected in this decision. Confrontation with the teaching of the Bible is acceptable (such as in the case of church discipline / excommunication, acceptance for membership, etc.) and should also be recognized as such.


1. Albert Snyder, Petitioner v. Fred W. Phelps, Sr., et al., 562 U.S. 09-751 (2011), 2.
2. Ibid., 5.
3. Ibid., 8.
4. Ibid.

To read the SCOTUS majority opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, please click here.