Hate Group Wins “Christian Flag” Case Before SCOTUS

NBC News reports:

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that the city of Boston violated the Constitution when it refused to let a local organization fly a Christian flag in front of city hall.

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.

“When the government encourages diverse expression — say, by creating a forum for debate — the First Amendment prevents it from discriminating against speakers based on their viewpoint,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the decision.

CNN reports:

The case was filed in 2018 after a Boston official denied the application by the group Camp Constitution to raise a flag — described as “Christian” in the application — on one of the three flagpoles outside Boston’s city hall. The group is an all-volunteer association that seeks to “enhance understanding of the country’s Judeo-Christian moral heritage.”

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, said that though the court relied upon “history, the public’s perception of who is speaking, and the extent to which the government has exercised control over speech” to determine that the flag-raising program did not amount to government speech, he would have analyzed the case based on a more exacting definition of what constitutes government speech.

Under a more narrow definition of government speech, Alito wrote that it occurs “if — but only if” a government “purposefully expresses a message of its own through persons authorized to speak on its behalf.”

USA Today reports:

“This case is so much more significant than a flag,” said Mathew Staver, the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal group that represented Camp Constitution. “Boston openly discriminated against viewpoints it disfavored when it opened the flagpoles to all applicants and then excluded Christian viewpoints.”

Boston said it worried that losing the case would mean it might someday be required to fly a flag from a neo-Nazi group or an al-Qaida flag. Another option: The city could avoid flying flags inconsistent with its views by not flying any third-party flags in the first place.

 

KnownDonorDad • 11 hours ago

I say immediately ban third-party flags going forward BEFORE the Christian fascist flag has a turn to fly. Get on it, Boston city council.

Mrs. Councillor Nugent KnownDonorDad • 10 hours ago

I would imagine that that was the real reason for the case: to deny the Pride flag, etc. In that case by all means move any Pride flags off public property. Then let them try to fly theirs, it could fly alright.

Friday J.Martindale • 10 hours ago

No, it doesn’t, cause the Pride flag represents social acceptance and the Christian nationalist flag represents dominionism and overthrowing… the government?

They’re literally trying to use the government to mark territory by favoring their own version of their own religion, and claiming that that’s an equivalent ‘viewpoint’ cause their version of their religion hates the people the Pride flag shows acceptance of? Either way they’re using the government to impose their religion and silence minority voices.

Guestfornow TnCTampa • 10 hours ago

The Christian superpower of always claiming constant victimhood and persecution will never allow that. They want special rights.

For their superpower, they get the keys to the kingdom. With those keys they are free to hate and harm as they originally wanted to do. The Muslim superpower of not depicting the profit (spelled that way on purpose) Mohamed is weak compared to the Christian superpower.

Christians lie about everything. They will twist this decision to get their wants

Darreth Guestfornow • 10 hours ago • edited

Don’t be surprised when ALEC forces legislation thru Red States to force a Christian flag to fly all the time now if a third flagpole is available.

These are the flagpoles in question.

Thumbnail

Unlike many city halls, Boston does not have a flagpole on top of the building. These poles serve that purpose.

To me, that makes SCOTUS absolutely wrong. A Christian (or any other religious) flag could reasonably be seen as endorsing religion.

Darreth BobSF_94117 • 10 hours ago

That’s precisely what the SCOTUS did here. And that’s why the SCOTUS needs to be expanded to balance secularists with the current crop of Dominionists.

thatotherjean • 11 hours ago

Ugh. The decision was not based on religion, but it will be taken that way by every right-wing Christian religious group. I hope the Satanists are taking notes.

The_Wretched thatotherjean • 10 hours ago

The decision was based on the idea that a flag outside the governmental building wasn’t ‘governmental speech’. I think that’s a bizarre outcome.

Friday thatotherjean • 10 hours ago

What SCOTUS is doing is pretending it’s just a ‘viewpoint’ and not an imposition of an establishment of religion when the CHristians want to impose their religion, either with their DOminionist flag or removing any symbols representing people they want to eliminate from the public square.

BobSF_94117 Houndentenor • 11 hours ago

These are the official flag poles of the city, displaying the national and state flags.

Yes, the third pole is open to civic groups BUT flying a religious flag “on top of city hall” is an endorsement of religion. It’s absurd that SCOTUS ignored that aspect. Religion is privileged in this country but that comes with a few restrictions, which help guarantee the freedom, not hinder it.

Houndentenor BobSF_94117 • 10 hours ago

There was zero chance that any of the six Federalist Society picks for SCOTUS would agree to ban all religious displays from government buildings. That is a nonstarter of an argument. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but this is the court we got from not enough Democrats turning out in 2000 and 2016. This is what we have to deal with now. Just wait and see what they do with Roe and Obergefell.

JWC • 10 hours ago

Let’s just cut to the chase Their objection was to a PRIDE flag It’s not that they want their flag to be flown its that the don’t want a PRIDE flag flown

TexasBoy • 10 hours ago • edited

Now apply this Free Speech thingy to Disney and Florida…

Darreth • 10 hours ago

Now that the Dominionists have won this nanometer case they will take a light year. So, this will be REPLICATED across the nation now. Dominionists will get more and more wins as time goes by.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.