Supreme Court Justices React To Boston’s Refusal To Fly The Christian Flag

Granted, although Jefferson noted in his writings that such was the principle behind the 1st. Even so, SCOTUS long ago ruled that the 1st applied to the states as well, and as such they cannot do anything that would imply an establishment between the government and a religion. Which is why it has to be an all or nothing thing, at least for allowance. Mind you if all are allowed, but only only the Christians ask, that is still within the realm of allowance. But if they refuse one, they have to refuse all.

 

Merely flying the Christian flag for a day is not asking anyone to bow down to anything.

 

It doesn’t say religions can push their beliefs in the government sphere either.

Care to answer the question?

 

strange, that isn’t what y’all scream anytime you see a rainbow flag. Why can religious people never find any consistency?

 

That's what I thought. Some one's going to the appellant courts.

 

Well, can we fly the islam flag for a day?

 

Only on the Islamic government buildings.

 

wait...what government buildings are religious in nature? are there xtian government buildings?

 

xtian?

 

X is Greek.

 

The use of X as a stand in for "Christ" is actually common, and, IIRC, originated partly from early days when the upcoming religion was not popular and in hiding. The sign of the fish was also a common indicator of a meeting place. Are you telling us you have never seen Christmas shortened to Xmas.

 

Christmas yes, Christian no.

 

SCOTUS answered it 9-0

Unanimous SCOTUS: Boston discriminated against Christians in flag-flying process

Good Justice Beyers, knows a woman when he sees one and he's not even a biologist.​

"It’s indisputably a big win for the First Amendment. In a unanimous opinion written by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court ruled that the city of Boston violated the Constitution by barring a Christian group from a flag-flying program meant to celebrate “diversity.”"

Good!

"Excluding Christians from a civic process that supposedly celebrates diversity" is absurd. "Breyer leads off with this irony in his ruling opinion, noting the difference between “government speaking for itself” and a government inviting an open forum on the basis of diversity."

You sir, are my favorite Liberal Justice. You will be missed.

"Put Breyer firmly in the “free speech” camp, in other words. It’s a worthy ruling in that regard, too, which shouldn’t be dismissed. However, it’s worth asking why Boston refused this particular request, especially since — as Breyer notes — it was apparently the first and only time in almost 300 applications that the city had denied access:"

"As Justice Brett Kavanaugh notes in his brief concurrence, the real issue here is an attempt to treat religious speech as somehow second-class:"

That is such an obvious point, yet so many on the Left trip all over it.

“Government speech” is best defined literally, Alito argues:

"Boston didn’t have a leg to stand on when blocking private speech in a process by which the city encouraged the latter as non-government speech. Alito includes government-created “forums” in the latter:

Again, easily followed reasoning.

"Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas put aside the free speech arguments entirely to focus on the suppression of religious expression."

9-0 should be clear enough for the lower courts to follow easily.

 

Unless all religions can fly one, none can. We have a separation for a good reason.

 

I support their right to do so

 

Keep in mind that this is a key point. Can, not do. We can't refuse the Christian flag from flying simply because other religions do not elect to fly theirs (they can always make one if they don't have one). We should only refuse it if we refuse the other religions. Equality is about equality of opportunity not equality of results.

 

True.
The Satanic Temple requests that Boston fly its flag after Supreme Court ruling
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/04/politics/satanic-temple-boston-supreme-court-flag/index.html

 

You can fly the Christian banner on Boston Common Grounds as long as other Religious flags can be flown as well. This would now mean that the Boston Satanic Temple can now fly their flag. The question is, would religious Christian zealots allow that flag to fly or will they get upset and demand that only the Christian flag be allowed to fly.

 

Should Boston be forced to fly the flag of the state of Iowa, for example? Dude, do you see my point??

 

If those Satanists do exactly the same as this Christian Group did(I.e. apply to put it up there) and the city rejects it, they(the city) should end up losing in court AGAIN, as they apparently do not understand how 1A works.

 

That's a state and not an organization. Further, I would say that they would be in their rights to refuse a flag that is part of an organization that does not have a presence within the city. For example, I will pull out my old Star Trek international fan club for this, if we had at least one chapter within the city, then they could not refuse us since we would be part of their diversity or whatever they were using as their reason. However, if there was no chapter within the city, flying it would not be exhibiting part of the city's diversity or whatever, and thus it would be right and proper to refuse us.

 

From what I just read, they are ending the practice altogether now, at least for the time being.

 

If so, then it’s fair all around. No one gets to raise a flag.

 

The fact he’s going to be replaced by the single biggest political extremist the court has seen since the 1940s is a travesty.

Where do you think Ketanji would have voted?

 

Now all other religions can do the same.