Yes, the obnoxious "church" has the right to say what they will.
But, when they assault individuals, verbally or in writing, they also have the right to be sued and tried and to suffer the consequences of their actions and words. This "poem on the church's website that attacked Matthew's parents for the way they brought up their son." is well within the rights of the Snyders to sue over.
Unfortunately, it appears they tried it as a Constitutional issue and not as a personal libel issue so of course the Snyders lost.
I despise the "church" and willingly participate in protecting families at funerals from seeing their hateful signs and hearing their hateful speech because they have the right to appear in public places and address what they feel are public issues. When they overstep that and make it personal, they lose the right to speak. Had the "church" kept it impersonal and on public issues, they could rant and rave all they want. Publishing that poem stepped over the line.
Because the court heard it as a First Amendment issue and not a vicious verbal assault on an individual, it seems only the "church" is happy.
I must be in the 3% because honestly, I don't have time to waste on thinking about my body. As long as I can get the stuff done that I feel I need to do, how my body appears is just not something I've ever thought about. Even with this hand injury (and the knee injury from 2 years ago), I rarely think of my body unless I can't do something, and then, it's often just to figure out a work-around or some way to get it done anyway. It's only when I can't get something done that I fuss about my body. As long as I can get things done, my body is invisible beyond routine maintenance.
The body efficient. That's what matters to me, not "pretty" or "ugly" or "fat", but "can I pick this up?", "can I dig this entire row?", "can I walk that far?", or "can I drive a car?" and as long as the answer to those questions and more is "yes", I'm happy.