Free speech does not grant you license to disturb the peace or cause pain and suffering to others.
Beg to differ with you on that last part. There are reasonable restrictions on "free speech" such as not inciting to riot, not uttering a liable or slander, and not advocating the violent overthrow of the government. Causing "pain and suffering" is not one of the things the .gov can resasonably restrict me from doing. Your recourse for hurt feelings is to seek redress through the civil processes.
As for "disturbing the peace" -- let's start with the wiki definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disturbing_the_peace "Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions. This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music or dog barking), or using offensive words or insults likely to incite violence."
Nothing the WBC folks do at funerals even comes close to the above behaviors. Their chanting does not rise to the decible level of excessive noise, and the words they say do not challenge to fight and are not anywhere near as offensive as the common (in both senses of the word) conversations of many. They do not hurl insults likely to incite violence, although there are some who apparently would respond with violence against them.
The WBC folks express their opinion on the difference between their (WBC's) religiously-derived beliefs and the policy of the .gov. They also offer their opinion/speculation on the behavior of persons who hold religious beliefs different from their own.
And as for the notion of
an ordnance prohibiting demonstrations within a certain radius of cemeteries and/or religious structures
-- aren't we already upset by the establishment of "free speech zones", complete with chain link fencing, set aside where they cannot be seen or heard from where our .gov officials are speechifying? What makes doing that to the WBC acceptable but otherwise a trampling of First Amendment rights for the rest of us?
As long as the WBC folks do not block traffic or create a safety hazzard by their physical actions, and they do not commit criminal trespass on private property, they should be free to make asses of themselves no matter how much you may disagree with or dislike what they are saying. And I will, to repeat the statement of someone whose name eludes me at the moment, defend to the death their right regardless of the fact that I totally disagree with what they are saying.
For me the bottom line is that it is not the place for .gov to attempt to restrict or mediate the speech of WBC because some find it offensive or disagree with their opinions. It is, however, the right and duty of every individual to demonstrate by peaceful means their disagreement with both the message and the way in which the message is delivered. I am not aware that WBC obtains parade or demonstration permits, so there is little risk of law enforcement stepping in to preserve a privilege granted to them by the .gov.
stay safe.
skidmark
