U.S. Supreme Court to hear Boston Christian flag dispute

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a group's challenge to Boston's rejection of its request to fly a flag bearing the image of a Christian cross over city hall in a case involving religious and free speech rights.

The justices will consider an appeal by a Christian group called Camp Constitution of a lower court ruling in favor of the city, taking up the case four days before the start of their new nine-month term.

Camp Constitution is a volunteer group that teaches classes on U.S. history and current events. It unsuccessfully applied to raise a flag with a Christian cross on it over city hall in 2017. It noted that Boston had granted hundreds of requests brought by other private groups seeking to raise various flags.

The group said the city's refusal to grant the request violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. Part of the city's defense is that raising the flag might violate another section of the First Amendment that prohibits government endorsement of religion.





Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-to-hear-boston-christian-flag-dispute/ar-AAP0hUp?li=BBnb7Kz

---

American Taliban at work

[4Q2u2]

1. Camp Constitution

Sounds so benign and cutesy. I am sure they all have matching Brown shirts.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Another excuse to have a go at native Americans in the name of Christianity

We all know this is a 6-3 case.

Are there any bookmakers that take odds on SCOTUS cases? I bet we could predict with near 100% accuracy now. We all know this bunch takes cases to overrule them. And they keep taking such petty cases that expand Fundie power. I still can't get over gay cake baking. Your business is not a religion. You don't put your Christianity in the batter.

[JT45242]

4. 5-4 the chief justice will side with the correct side of history

Since his vote is not needed the CJ will vote correctly that this violates the establishment clause.


He gets the decision he wants without having to put his name on the illegitimate side of history.

Just like (R) senators have never had to vote aginst Roe V Wade and will hide behind Beer Bong and the Handmaiden.

[cstanleytech]

3. Court will side with the church like they did for schools hosting church services.

Only solution is for Boston to announce that they no longer fly any flags other than government ones.

[Ray Bruns]

5. I have a flag they can fly

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQniDrLXFv8JN2I18MIERkB45NKONak31ddS5i6Pv7uUXR5136_Etkq4vBydeWf-Y5YgRY&usqp=CAU

[reACTIONary]

9. +10 nt

[lonely bird]

6. Put up a flag with a crescent

And watch their heads explode.

[twodogsbarking]

7. South Carolina flag?

[lonely bird]

11. Nah.

A flag representing an Islamic denomination or order.

[oldsoftie]

8. Have a Satanic group request their flag be flown. Problem solved.

If you let ONE religious group fly a flag, you have to let ALL of them fly one

[Withywindle]

17. I'm sure they'll be on it!

The Satanic Temple lives for this kind of stuff. I would say God bless 'em but that's not appropriate.

[Grins]

20. Yes. Which begs the question...

Why did Boston "grant hundreds of requests brought by other private groups seeking to raise various flags"?

[oldsoftie]

21. I agree. nt

[melm00se]

10. The problem is

that the city has agreed to allow other flags to fly over city hall.

Once the city government did that, they cannot use the fact that they are christians as a reason not to fly their flag.

This will go in the 7-2 or higher ruling.

[lonely bird]

12. Sure they can

They stop allowing anything other than the US flag, state of Massachusetts flag or city of Boston.

Nothing else.

The Reich Wing has learned to couch their religionism as alleged freedom of speech.

[melm00se]

13. Back tracking now

does not absolve the city government for discriminating against christians (and make no mistake, this is discrimination as religious belief is one of the protected classes as much as that drives certain people nuts).

[lonely bird]

18. No, it isn't

This switching by the Religionists Right from freedom of religion to freedom of speech is disingenuous but also runs a real risk. We do not have complete freedom of speech. So, imo, this opens the door to the dissection of dogma in the public square. The religionists most definitely do not want that. As I said, put an Islamic flag up and watch their heads explode. This is attempting to claim a special place for Christianity, nothing more, nothing less. I would demand to see what religion requires putting a flag on a government building.

Just stop with anything besides government flags.

[LogicFirst]

16. But - were the other flags religious flags?

[melm00se]

19. Immaterial

Accepting non-governmental flags requires that the government make the same access available to other non-governmental entities.

[rickyhall]

14. What's with these people? Crosses all over the place & now they want flags. What are they afraid of?

Like the first thing the Crucified Guy wants to see upon His return is the instrument of His torture and execution. Never understood that.

[LogicFirst]

15. Camp Constitution doesn't understand all of the 1st Amendment.

It has taken a small portion of the text and disregarded the rest. Further, their purpose statement says that they teach that the US was founded as a Godly nation. However, in 1797 we had this: "Begun by George Washington, signed by John Adams and ratified unanimously by a Senate still half-filled with signers of the Constitution, this treaty announced firmly and flatly to the world that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”"

Camp Constitution needs to go back to class.