{"id":8128,"date":"2022-06-16T18:22:28","date_gmt":"2022-06-16T18:22:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=8128"},"modified":"2022-06-16T18:22:28","modified_gmt":"2022-06-16T18:22:28","slug":"the-supreme-court-hands-the-christian-right-a-victory-it-actually-deserved-to-win","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=8128","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court hands the Christian right a victory it actually deserved to win"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\n\n“The Supreme Court, in an increasingly familiar development<\/a>, handed a victory to a Christian conservative organization on Monday. The Court\u2019s decision in Shurtleff v. Boston<\/em><\/a> establishes that this organization, Camp Constitution, should have been allowed to fly a Christian-identified flag from a flagpole outside Boston\u2019s city hall.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But Shurtleff<\/em> is unlike several other high-profile victories<\/a> for religious conservatives that the Court has handed down in recent years because the justices did not need to remake existing law in order to reach this result. The decision was unanimous (although the justices split somewhat regarding why the plaintiffs in this case should prevail), with liberal Justice Stephen Breyer writing the majority opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case involves three flagpoles standing outside of Boston\u2019s city hall. The first flagpole displays the US flag, with a smaller flag honoring prisoners of war and missing service members below it. The second pole features the Massachusetts state flag. And the third typically \u2014 but not always \u2014 displays the city\u2019s own flag.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This third flagpole, and the city\u2019s practice of sometimes allowing outside groups to display a flag of their choice from it, is the centerpiece of Shurtleff<\/em>. Since at least 2005, the city has permitted outside groups to hold flag-raising ceremonies on the plaza during which they can raise a flag of their choosing on the third flagpole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At various times, the third flagpole has displayed the flags of many nations<\/a>, including Brazil, China, Ethiopia, Italy, Mexico, and Turkey. It has displayed the rainbow LGBTQ pride flag, a flag commemorating the Battle of Bunker Hill, and a flag honoring Malcolm X.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But when Harold Shurtleff, head of an organization called Camp Constitution<\/a>, asked to fly a flag associated with the Christian faith, the city refused \u2014 claiming that displaying such a flag could be interpreted as \u201can endorsement by the city of a particular religion<\/a>,\u201d in violation of \u201cseparation of church and state or the [C]onstitution.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Breyer\u2019s majority opinion concludes that the city erred. Relying on a bevy of cases establishing that the government typically cannot discriminate against a particular viewpoint, Breyer notes that \u201cBoston concedes that it denied Shurtleff\u2019s request solely because the Christian flag he asked to raise \u2018promot[ed] a specific religion.\u2019\u201d Under the facts of this case, that\u2019s a form of viewpoint discrimination and it\u2019s not allowed.  
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While it\u2019s notable that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh each wrote separate opinions indicating that they are eager to let government get cozy with religion, and they have two<\/a> opportunities<\/a> to do so this term, this case is a straightforward decision that follows current law \u2014 in short, nothing remarkable.”   
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The general rule in free speech cases is that the government may not discriminate against any particular viewpoint. Boston could not, for example, have a rule that Democrats are allowed to gather in the city hall plaza but not Republicans. Or that people who support restrictive immigration policies may do so, but not people who oppose them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But there\u2019s an exception to this general rule when the government speaks in its own voice. That is, the government is allowed to express its own opinion on a subject without also providing a forum for dissenting voices. If a public school principal tells her students to \u201csay no to drugs,\u201d she\u2019s not required to give equal time to the grungy guy in the junior class who sells weed out of his 1997 Subaru Legacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The primary question in Shurtleff<\/em> is whether, when Boston\u2019s city government permitted a wide range of private groups \u2014 but not Camp Constitution \u2014 to display a flag of their choice outside of city hall, these flags represented the city\u2019s speech or the private groups\u2019 speech. Again, if the flags were a form of government speech, then Boston is allowed to exclude viewpoints it does not share.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the Court concluded that the city did not use the third flagpole to express its own views, and that it effectively created \u201ca forum for the expression of private speakers\u2019 views.\u201d As Breyer notes, Boston does not appear to have made any effort whatsoever to control which flags are displayed from this flagpole until it denied Shurtleff\u2019s request to fly a Christian flag.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/23053382\/supreme-court-boston-flagpole-christian-shurtleff-stephen-breyer-religion-first-amendment<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The Supreme Court, in an increasingly familiar development, handed a victory to a Christian conservative organization on Monday. The Court\u2019s decision in Shurtleff v. Boston establishes that this organization, Camp Constitution, should have been allowed to fly a Christian-identified flag from a flagpole outside Boston\u2019s city hall.<\/p>\n

But Shurtleff is unlike several other high-profile victories for religious conservatives that the Court has handed down in recent years because the justices did not need to remake existing law in order to reach this result. The decision was unanimous (although the justices split somewhat regarding why the plaintiffs in this case should prevail), with liberal Justice Stephen Breyer writing the majority opinion.<\/p>\n

The case involves three flagpoles standing outside of Boston\u2019s city hall. The first flagpole displays the US flag, with a smaller flag honoring prisoners of war and missing service members below it. The second pole features the Massachusetts state flag. And the third typically \u2014 but not always \u2014 displays the city\u2019s own flag.<\/p>\n

This third flagpole, and the city\u2019s practice of sometimes allowing outside groups to display a flag of their choice from it, is the centerpiece of Shurtleff. Since at least 2005, the city has permitted outside groups to hold flag-raising ceremonies on the plaza during which they can raise a flag of their choosing on the third flagpole.<\/p>\n

At various times, the third flagpole has displayed the flags of many nations, including Brazil, China, Ethiopia, Italy, Mexico, and Turkey. It has displayed the rainbow LGBTQ pride flag, a flag commemorating the Battle of Bunker Hill, and a flag honoring Malcolm X.<\/p>\n

But when Harold Shurtleff, head of an organization called Camp Constitution, asked to fly a flag associated with the Christian faith, the city refused \u2014 claiming that displaying such a flag could be interpreted as \u201can endorsement by the city of a particular religion,\u201d in violation of \u201cseparation of church and state or the [C]onstitution.\u201d<\/p>\n

Justice Breyer\u2019s majority opinion concludes that the city erred. Relying on a bevy of cases establishing that the government typically cannot discriminate against a particular viewpoint, Breyer notes that \u201cBoston concedes that it denied Shurtleff\u2019s request solely because the Christian flag he asked to raise \u2018promot[ed] a specific religion.\u2019\u201d Under the facts of this case, that\u2019s a form of viewpoint discrimination and it\u2019s not allowed. <\/p>\n

While it\u2019s notable that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh each wrote separate opinions indicating that they are eager to let government get cozy with religion, and they have two opportunities to do so this term, this case is a straightforward decision that follows current law \u2014 in short, nothing remarkable.” <\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“The general rule in free speech cases is that the government may not discriminate against any particular viewpoint. Boston could not, for example, have a rule that Democrats are allowed to gather in the city hall plaza but not Republicans. Or that people who support restrictive immigration policies may do so, but not people who oppose them.<\/p>\n

But there\u2019s an exception to this general rule when the government speaks in its own voice. That is, the government is allowed to express its own opinion on a subject without also providing a forum for dissenting voices. If a public school principal tells her students to \u201csay no to drugs,\u201d she\u2019s not required to give equal time to the grungy guy in the junior class who sells weed out of his 1997 Subaru Legacy.<\/p>\n

The primary question in Shurtleff is whether, when Boston\u2019s city government permitted a wide range of private groups \u2014 but not Camp Constitution \u2014 to display a flag of their choice outside of city hall, these flags represented the city\u2019s speech or the private groups\u2019 speech. Again, if the flags were a form of government speech, then Boston is allowed to exclude viewpoints it does not share.<\/p>\n

But the Court concluded that the city did not use the third flagpole to express its own views, and that it effectively created \u201ca forum for the expression of private speakers\u2019 views.\u201d As Breyer notes, Boston does not appear to have made any effort whatsoever to control which flags are displayed from this flagpole until it denied Shurtleff\u2019s request to fly a Christian flag.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[220,60,790,1051,875,848,1213,57,528],"class_list":["post-8128","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-share","tag-christian-right","tag-christianity","tag-courts","tag-flag","tag-free-speech","tag-freedom-of-speech","tag-judiciary","tag-religion","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8128","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8128"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8128\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8129,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8128\/revisions\/8129"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8128"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8128"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8128"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}