SCOTUS unanimously rules Boston violated group's rights by refusing to fly Christian flag

[Common Sense 1]

​

SCOTUS unanimously rules Boston violated group's rights by refusing to fly Christian flag​

SCOTUS said Boston violated the Camp's free speech rights​

SCOTUS unanimously rules Boston violated group's rights by refusing to fly Christian flag

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a "Christian flag."

www.foxnews.com

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a "Christian flag."

The question before the court was whether flying the flag as part of a government program was considered government speech if the flag belonged to a private organization, in this case, Camp Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not.

​

A strong opinion from the court. All 9 justices agreed.
Breyer wrote the city of Boston discriminated based on religious viewpoint and violated the Free Speech Clause.

 

[Phys251]

​

SCOTUS unanimously rules Boston violated group's rights by refusing to fly Christian flag​

SCOTUS said Boston violated the Camp's free speech rights​

SCOTUS unanimously rules Boston violated group's rights by refusing to fly Christian flag

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a "Christian flag."

www.foxnews.com

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a "Christian flag."

The question before the court was whether flying the flag as part of a government program was considered government speech if the flag belonged to a private organization, in this case, Camp Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not.

​

A strong opinion form the court. All 9 justices agreed.
Breyer wrote the city of Boston discriminated based on religious viewpoint and violated the Free Speech Clause.

Critical to the ruling was this:

While the case had religious overtones, the decision was fundamentally about free speech rights. The court said the city created a public forum, open to all comers, when it allowed organizations to use a flagpole in front of City Hall for commemorative events. Denying the same treatment for the Christian flag was a violation of free expression, it said.

So this was a case more about free speech than the free exercise of religion. Therefore I support the Court's decision.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Critical to the ruling was this:



So this was a case more about free speech than the free exercise of religion. Therefore I support the Court's decision.

It's going to be a good Monday because I agree you 100%

 

[LouC]

Critical to the ruling was this:



So this was a case more about free speech than the free exercise of religion. Therefore I support the Court's decision.

Good decision.

 

[Napoleon]

Critical to the ruling was this:



So this was a case more about free speech than the free exercise of religion. Therefore I support the Court's decision.

The idea that government flagpoles are public forums for religious speech is a strange concept to me.

 

[Common Sense 1]

The idea that government flagpoles are public forums for religious speech is a strange concept to me.

In a unanimous decision, the court said the city created a public forum, open to all comers, when it allowed organizations to use a flagpole in front of City Hall.

 

[roguenuke]

While I don't agree with the city opening up the flagpole to organizations as they did, pretty much for this reason, the SCOTUS made the correct decision because of the city's decision to do this.

 

[lwf]

The idea that government flagpoles are public forums for religious speech is a strange concept to me.

The city had established it as such through precedent. There is nothing in the ruling preventing them from changing that free speech policy with a simple decision moving forward. In other words, they are welcome to refuse to fly the Christian flag in the future. They just have to make it a policy not to allow religious flags to be flown. Because they hadn't done that and allowed any and all flags to be flown previously, they set the precedent that this particular flagpole was a public forum.

 

[tacomancer]

​

SCOTUS unanimously rules Boston violated group's rights by refusing to fly Christian flag​

SCOTUS said Boston violated the Camp's free speech rights​

SCOTUS unanimously rules Boston violated group's rights by refusing to fly Christian flag

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a "Christian flag."

www.foxnews.com

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a "Christian flag."

The question before the court was whether flying the flag as part of a government program was considered government speech if the flag belonged to a private organization, in this case, Camp Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not.

​

A strong opinion from the court. All 9 justices agreed.
Breyer wrote the city of Boston discriminated based on religious viewpoint and violated the Free Speech Clause.

Given the purpose of this program, this looks like the right call.

 

[Mr Person]

What appears to the right of the article but a suggested list of anti-left bumper stickers:



The algorithms seemingly picked up on the fact that Boston was a blue city and coughed up other standard anti-blue-city culture ware crap.

 

[Mr Person]

<> A strong opinion from the court. All 9 justices agreed.
Breyer wrote the city of Boston discriminated based on religious viewpoint and violated the Free Speech Clause.

Trying to paint Christians as the real victims here?

Nothing about the case suggests Boston rejected the flag specifically because it was Christian, but instead because it was religious in general and thus inappropriate for government speech. Boston didn't want to waste tax payer dollars defending suits resulting from flying it.

Boston had acknowledged that they denied the application because of its religious content, due to their belief that it would have been government speech. Once the court decided that there was no government speech involved, that spelled the end of the city's case.​

Ok, so someone made a legal judgment the court later disagreed with. Big whoop.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Nothing about the case suggests Boston rejected the flag specifically because it was Christian, but instead because it was religious in general and thus inappropriate for government speech. Boston didn't want to waste tax payer dollars defending suits resulting from flying it.

This is a lie. They fought it in the district court, the appellate court, and then the Supreme Court.

The algorithms seemingly picked up on the fact that Boston was a blue city and coughed up other standard anti-blue-city culture ware crap.

MSNBC must be broken then. It doesn't seem to care what the story is about for their standard anti-red culture ware [sic] crap.

 

[Common Sense 1]

What appears to the right of the article but a suggested list of anti-left bumper stickers:

View attachment 67388575

The algorithms seemingly picked up on the fact that Boston was a blue city and coughed up other standard anti-blue-city culture ware crap.

One more useless post that has nothing to do with this thread. Why?

 

[GummyVitamins]

The city had established it as such through precedent. There is nothing in the ruling preventing them from changing that free speech policy with a simple decision moving forward. In other words, they are welcome to refuse to fly the Christian flag in the future. They just have to make it a policy not to allow religious flags to be flown. Because they hadn't done that and allowed any and all flags to be flown previously, they set the precedent that this particular flagpole was a public forum.

This isn't accurate. They cannot treat it as a public forum. If they treat it as a public forum they can't impose a "free speech policy" that violates the free speech rights of religious groups. That's effectively what they tried doing here and they were wrong.

 

[GummyVitamins]

The idea that government flagpoles are public forums for religious speech is a strange concept to me.

They have three flag poles. The first has the US flag, the second has the MA flag. The third flag pole normally has the city flag, however, they allow people to raise their own flag on this pole when they are granted permission to hold a ceremony outside City Hall. A religious group was having a "ceremony" and wanted to use that third flag pole during their ceremony. The city told them they couldn't because it had a cross on it. The Supreme Court told them to get bent.

 

[lwf]

This isn't accurate. They cannot treat it as a public forum. If they treat it as a public forum they can't impose a "free speech policy" that violates the free speech rights of religious groups. That's effectively what they tried doing here and they were wrong.

They can absolutely stop this flagpole public forum policy in the future at any time. The ruling flat out says so. What they can't do is treat it as a public forum AND refuse to fly religious flags. If it is a public forum, then freedom of speech applies. So their choices are: make it a public forum and respect freedom of speech by allowing any flag at all, or don't make it a public forum.

 

[GummyVitamins]

They can absolutely stop this public forum policy in the future at any time. The ruling flat out says so. What they can't do is treat it as a public forum, AND refuse to fly religious flags. If it is a public forum, then freedom of speech applies. So their choices are, make it a public forum and respect freedom of speech, or don't make it a public forum.

Yes, I should have been more specific and my statement was clumsily worded. If they want to ban religious flags they cannot treat it as a public forum. But, they might find it difficult to do so legally if they continue to allow the public to use the space for public purposes.

 

[Plasmaball]

Yes, I should have been more specific and my statement was clumsily worded. If they want to ban religious flags they cannot treat it as a public forum. But, they might find it difficult to do so legally if they continue to allow the public to use the space for public purposes.

Lol...man I couldn't sum up your issue any better than this post.


Anyways the ruling is fine.

 

[JMR]

Though all nine ruled against Boston, Breyer's decision was signed by 6. The three right wingers, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion, based on different interpretations. Haven't had time to read it all yet.

 

[Luce]

The ruling is correct.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Critical to the ruling was this:



So this was a case more about free speech than the free exercise of religion. Therefore I support the Court's decision.

Yup!
IF the government is GOING TO invite participants to plant a flag as a symbol of speech, they MUST accept all comers.
That's the point, whether it's Boston or Florida.
It's THE GUBMINT, Uncle Sam...
Uncle Sam isn't allowed to decide who gets to speak in the very PUBLIC forum that they have erected.

If the flagpole is owned by you, or me, or some company, or any private entity then yes, WE GET to pick the participants.
But when Uncle Sam does it, they do NOT get to.

 

[Jason Warfield]

​

SCOTUS unanimously rules Boston violated group's rights by refusing to fly Christian flag​

SCOTUS said Boston violated the Camp's free speech rights​

SCOTUS unanimously rules Boston violated group's rights by refusing to fly Christian flag

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a "Christian flag."

www.foxnews.com

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a "Christian flag."

The question before the court was whether flying the flag as part of a government program was considered government speech if the flag belonged to a private organization, in this case, Camp Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not.

​

A strong opinion from the court. All 9 justices agreed.
Breyer wrote the city of Boston discriminated based on religious viewpoint and violated the Free Speech Clause.

This wasn’t about Christianity; it was about free speech.

The government program in question did not have a mission to make Christianity a state religion and the flag was owned privately. To me, this akin to a government pamphlets stating religions in the nation and including a flag as a symbol: no where is there any insistence that by doing this we are implying that the government sanctions this is a Christian nation.

For once, a good ruling.

 

[rjay]

​

SCOTUS unanimously rules Boston violated group's rights by refusing to fly Christian flag​

SCOTUS said Boston violated the Camp's free speech rights​

SCOTUS unanimously rules Boston violated group's rights by refusing to fly Christian flag

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a "Christian flag."

www.foxnews.com

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a "Christian flag."

The question before the court was whether flying the flag as part of a government program was considered government speech if the flag belonged to a private organization, in this case, Camp Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not.

​

A strong opinion from the court. All 9 justices agreed.
Breyer wrote the city of Boston discriminated based on religious viewpoint and violated the Free Speech Clause.

Even though the organization, Camp Constitution appear to be nut-jobs, the SCOTUS decision seems correct, based on the reasons given, for this ruling.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

​

SCOTUS unanimously rules Boston violated group's rights by refusing to fly Christian flag​

SCOTUS said Boston violated the Camp's free speech rights​

SCOTUS unanimously rules Boston violated group's rights by refusing to fly Christian flag

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a "Christian flag."

www.foxnews.com

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a "Christian flag."

The question before the court was whether flying the flag as part of a government program was considered government speech if the flag belonged to a private organization, in this case, Camp Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not.

​

A strong opinion from the court. All 9 justices agreed.
Breyer wrote the city of Boston discriminated based on religious viewpoint and violated the Free Speech Clause.

And they're right. Strictly from a free speech standpoint they can't say no to one and ok to others.

The sad part is the christians have spewed so much hate lately that their symbols are controversial now.

 

[Gatsby]

Allowing randos to fly flags on a public location seems like it's just asking for trouble. What if it's the Nazi Party? The Russian government?

With that said, I think the court is correct. If you're going to have this dumb program, it should be open to everyone.