Heck, even if a lease does exist, can a local government lease public parks to third parties with the power to exclude other citizens? Then again, if it is leased to another governmental agency, such arrangements might be OK.
Yes, they do it all the time.
I dont have anything to contest that, though if done consistently, it would seem to be unconstitutional (the say, near permanent lease of public park "p" to group "g" inhibits the free speech abiliites of other citizens- and also de facto transfers public property to aprivate group).
That aside, there evidently is a lease. But, the city contends that the terms of the lease do not allow the school to ban free speech activities in the public park. My guess is that the school administrator is out of lunch.
If anything, the most those opposed to the "Jesus Lunch" can do is request equal time for free speech activities of their own. Evidently, the religous group is using a pavilion with permission from the city. Should another group request use of the pavillion, they probably need to be given equal time access to it.
To the best of my knowledge they only gave people time slots to certain parts of the park. The space is reserved for you for that time period and no one else is allowed to use it at that time. Of course no one is told this is the case and people do use the area, but they can removed for doing so.
The school does seem to have a lease with the park saying it can enforce its rules on any event during basically school hours that take place there.
They do have a lease. But... according to the city, which allowed the religous group to reserve the pavillion in the park and also issued the group a letter affirming that they have a right to use it, the lease held by the school is very limited in nature.
Likewise, the group's lawyer claims there is a mountain of case law on his side regarding leases of certain public properties. Though this is a claim of a partisan attorney, the city's allowing them to reserve the pavillion and issuing them a letter affirming that they can enter and use the park reinforces his claims.
My guess is that the case law and the city's affirmation that the lease is limited stems from past instances where cities had clearly favored one group over others and then facilitated them by allowing them to continuosly lease public parks for their events.
Heck, even if a lease does exist, can a local government lease public parks to third parties with the power to exclude other citizens? Then again, if it is leased to another governmental agency, such arrangements might be OK.
I doubt it. The city has apparently affirmed that the parents can hold free speech events in the public park despite the limited lease held by the school. Rather, it will end when the principal says things have gotten too disruptive and revokes the off campus lunch policy.I think this is most likely going to end with the parents leaving to find another place.
Middleton Wisconsin is a prosperous suburb*: Middleton, Wisconsin Economy I dont think many of students would find a free lunch that enticing. Rather, a certain number are attending the lunches simply because they know it bothers the administration.This is not nearly as benign as they are making it out to be. They are basically bribing teens during school hours to preach.
Good wording on the explanation of the lease. That is the way another source also described the lease. The lease does not give the school the ability to resitrict access to the park or limit free speech activities in it. Rather, they just have the right of primacy regarding reservations for the facilities.If it's anything like most jurisdictions, schools and other public institutions have first right of access to other public institutional space. That doesn't, however, take away from the inappropriateness of the situation as outlined in the OP.
I doubt it. The city has apparently affirmed that the parents can hold free speech events in the public park despite the limited lease held by the school. Rather, it will end when
when the principal says things have gotten too disruptive and revokes the off campus lunch policy.
Middleton Wisconsin is a prosperous suburb*: Middleton, Wisconsin Economy I dont think many of students would find a free lunch that enticing. Rather, a certain number are attending the lunches simply because they know it bothers the administration.
*Then again, blue state big union demands had placed the Wisconsin economy in danger.... .
The students also have access to hot food at restaraunts- and I doubt the brown bag lunch at the luncheon stays that hot after the number of attendees increased.This is causing a rift and problems in the school. The group has even said they are looking into stopping the lunches.
I think eating something other than the school lunch, somewhere very close would be very enticing, especially if it's hot food paid for by someone else.
The rift is being caused by the totalitarians at the school. No one is being forced to participate in the lunches.This is causing a rift and problems in the school. The group has even said they are looking into stopping the lunches.
I think eating something other than the school lunch, somewhere very close would be very enticing, especially if it's hot food paid for by someone else.
That would be extremely childish and petty on the part of the school.All the school really has to do is forbid students from leaving the school campus during lunch and that is that. Sorry to those that claim unfair, schools do have that right and it is actually the norm not the exception.
That would be extremely childish and petty on the part of the school.
The rift is being caused by the totalitarians at the school. No one is being forced to participate in the lunches.
The rift is caused by both. High school involves a lot of peer pressure and someone refusing to join the crowd is easily ostracized for feeling uncomfortable about attending services during school hours.
Big deal. No one is forced to attend, and they aren't required to listen to the religious message even if they do. This is just about the bullies at the school pitching a fit over something they don't like and are powerless to stop. This isn't on school property and it's during a time the students are allowed to be off campus.
Why shouldn't it be going on?Both sides have bullies. And this shouldn't be going on and these parents know it.
Their claim was that their kids felt uncomfortable discussing their religion at school and they wanted to share their beliefs with other students. It grew so they continued it. Why? There was no reason to continue it if it was obvious that their kids weren't some minority that should feel uncomfortable talking about religion with their friends, in an appropriate time and place, not during school, at least not with adults leading it.
Why shouldn't it be going on?
One more case of Christian persecution in the US. Maybe some day we will actually recognize it and do something to prevent it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?