Maxiep, I think it is because they are persons, and the 1st amendment applies to persons. Corporations are not persons.
Harassment and speech, however nasty, are not the same thing. Despicable as they are, the Phelps cult is careful to follow laws. They observe prescribed distance, do not block sidewalks, do not approach and scream in people's ears, do not use threats, do not block doorways, etc. So yes, they are covered by free speech. And it is a victory for us, all of us, because it means the Tea Party and the National Organization for Women, the Christian Coalition, Earth Action, the Gay Pride Parade, all of whom annoy someone, still have our rights. Harassment is more what the anti-women's rights groups (I can't just say antiabortion since they also oppose contraception, sex education, rape prevention programs, prenatal care, WIC program - everything that either prevents unwanted pregnancy or helps babies be healthy). Those people do, often, block sidewalks, barricade buildings, padlock doors shut, write down license plates and harass patients at their homes, jobs, schools, threaten, get in people's faces and scream, tell men to beat their wives/girlfriends to prevent their abortion, videotape patients, post doctors home addresses on line with invitations to act violently against them, bomb clinics, kill doctors and clinic staff and police officers. That is not free speech. If they just stood across the street with their signs, as the Phelps cult does, however offensive, I'd have to defend their free speech, as I do the Phelps cult.
Only in this, the most conservative country, could this event happen without any ridicule of the ideologies behind it, both conservative and religious. If a bunch of hippies were doing this and holding leftist signs, the reaction would be much more harsh. Actually, the conservative police never would have allowed it to happen in the first place. The U.S. freedom of religion is much stronger than the freedom of speech. If not under the umbrella of religion, they wouldn't have won using only one freedom as an issue, the one of speech. They needed both freedom issues to win, mainly religion. The legal system is why the liberal social movements which are most enduring are under the ambiance of religion.
