Supreme Court: Boston can't deny Christian flag if it flies other flags on City Hall flagpole
Source: USA Today
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Boston may not deny a Christian group the ability to raise a flag at City Hall alongside secular organizations that are encouraged to do so to celebrate the city's diversity.
The unanimous decision was the latest in a series of rulings from the high court in recent years that have favored the protection of religious groups asserting a violation of their rights, only in this case the group had support that transcended traditional ideological and partisan lines. The Biden administration, for instance, sided with the group and against Boston.
"We conclude that Bostons flag-raising program does not express government speech," Associate Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court. "As a result, the citys refusal to let (the group) fly their flag based on its religious viewpoint violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment."
A mix of conservative and liberal justices joined the court's opinion, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. There were no dissents.
Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/05/02/supreme-court-boston-cant-deny-flying-christian-flag-flagpole/6916444001/
Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
jimfields33
(15,475 posts)Progress in Boston is so beautiful.
Response to jimfields33 (Reply #5)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)They have just as much right as anyone else to fly it.
-- Mal
Ray Bruns
(4,023 posts)CrispyQ
(36,234 posts)I see right-wing heads exploding.
A primer on the difference between The Satanic Temple & The Church of Satan:
niyad
(112,440 posts)reACTIONary
(5,749 posts)LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)Demovictory9
(32,324 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,076 posts)Ray Bruns
(4,023 posts)reACTIONary
(5,749 posts)TomSlick
(11,035 posts)Once a government opens that door, it must allow all through.
Rebl2
(13,311 posts)homegirl
(1,419 posts)Star of David
Muslim Crescent
and any other religious group that can afford a flag!!!
Rural_Progressive
(1,105 posts)in Boston's future
zanana1
(6,085 posts)We should have a contest to decorate the flag. Let's see; spaghetti, colander, spaghetti, colander...
Jose Garcia
(2,552 posts)shrike3
(3,283 posts)I believe one out of four Americans is unchurched at the moment. Those who are churched follow a variety of religions, and if you respect, you have to respect them all.
Archae
(46,262 posts)If a group wanted to fly a Muslim flag, those same "christians" would throw a fit.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,283 posts)I suppose if Al Qaeda supplies a flag, City Hall will have to fly it.
Maybe they could restrict the flagpoles to just fly the US flag and Massechusetts flag
mountain grammy
(26,573 posts)enough with the flags already..
RobinA
(9,878 posts)US flag, state flag, maybe city flag if there is one. Flags are speech in my book. No special interest flag on public property. None.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)as well. I can see it now. This is getting ridiculous. It should be country, state, city and that's it.
jmowreader
(50,453 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)There aren't a lot of them, but they have a presence that they like to make known. Nothing makes them happier than to come into Boston or Cambridge to "own the Libs".
Mariana
(14,849 posts)intheflow
(28,408 posts)that Boston will be expected to fly now.
Sounds reasonable, especially since all the Justices agreed.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)I suppose if there were no dissents, this is probably the correct decision given the law, even if I kinda hate it myself
bucolic_frolic
(42,679 posts)I don't see religion as diversity. I see it as a tolerance issue.
msfiddlestix
(7,266 posts)I never understood why progressives began to embrace that term back in the 90's to be associated with celebrating diversity.
the term "tolerance" was always associated with enabling bad or abusive behavior.
"She tolerated her husband's assaults because she was trapped in that marriage"
The school tolerates bullies.
etc etc
dweller
(23,562 posts)✌🏻
niyad
(112,440 posts)Blues Heron
(5,899 posts)Good Mac to you this fine and noodley day!
I'll have to get one for my front yard, too.
Scalded Nun
(1,231 posts)How about McDonald's? That have an 'M' which could double as a Massachusetts flag.
JudyM
(29,122 posts)The court cases are going to start any time now . I look forward to:
niyad
(112,440 posts)Noodly appendages uber alles.
yaesu
(8,020 posts)FBaggins
(26,697 posts)Good answer.
melm00se
(4,975 posts)The question before the Court was:
The Court sided with Shurtleff as:
If the Court had decided that Boston made the raising and flying of private groups' flags a form of government speech then the decision would have gone the other way and properly so.
Once a government opens its property up to public speech (flying other non-governmental flags) it may not discriminate as to the type of speech (religious v. not). (Its choice is essentially to allow everyone to use the flag pole, or let no one.)
This is well-settled law.
Warpy
(110,913 posts)If I know Bostonisns, someone will bodge one up pretty quickly.
niyad
(112,440 posts)What makes them think the United States flag ever stood for diversity?
niyad
(112,440 posts)jmowreader
(50,453 posts)Put in your mind a picture of a US flag. Now imagine that the part with the stripes is a solid white field, and the part with the stars has a red Christian cross instead of the stars.
Fla Dem
(23,354 posts)Separation of church and state and you know.
But hey absolutely fly flags for the Bruins, Red Sox, Pats and Celtics when they win championships. They're non religious and represent the state.
maxsolomon
(32,992 posts)...
poor poor Christians, so persecuted.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)Once you open the flag pole up as a quasi-public forum, you are not allowed to pick and choose who uses it. If the local bridge club can use it to fly their flag, so can a church.
brooklynite
(93,880 posts)Setting aside the City, State and National flags, either everyone gets to play or nobody does.
bluestarone
(16,723 posts)DON'T wait. ask NOW to fly the Satan flag! NOW NOW NOW!
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)bluestarone
(16,723 posts)What would the SC's answer be to the people that request a Satan flag? Would they also allow that? Could be very interesting.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)promotion the municipalities either allow it or give up the whole idea of allowing the thing they were allowing.
For example, see:
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2014/12/22/satanic-temple-display-comes-florida-capitol/20764841/
bluestarone
(16,723 posts)Guess i'll be watching for something like this here.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Satanic Temple asks Boston to fly flag after court ruling
https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-religion-boston-massachusetts-37ddcf21ee814cf3affd0f1e36d59f4b
Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #83)
PoliticAverse This message was self-deleted by its author.
bluestarone
(16,723 posts)I will continue watching this!
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Novara
(5,755 posts)Separation of church and state, hello????
Fine, then fly the ISIS flag, fly the FSM flag, fly the Satanic Temple flag. Fly sports teams' flags. Put them all up in a mockery of the SCOTUS.
ALL OR NONE.
Xtian flags do not belong on government property; it is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. You want to promote diversity? Then allow flags along the streets and thoroughfares rather than at City Fucking Hall. That smacks of city government approval and endorsement. Yes, city streets are also government property but it looks a lot less like city hall is endorsing religion, which is is forbidden to do.
As much as the xtians will cry about this: this country is not a christian country. I, for one, am sick and tired of it shoved down everyone's throats.
Unanimous? What the everloving fuck?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Novara
(5,755 posts)However, I still see it as a violation of the Establishment Clause to allow ANY religion to be represented on government property. Not all or none, but ANY religion.
Now let's see if they'll allow an ISIS flag. Or the Satanic Temple flag. Somebody's gotta push it, man.
Polybius
(15,239 posts)It's a group, much like the KKK.
GregariousGroundhog
(7,498 posts)The question before them was whether the city's flag pole was government speech or whether it was a public forum. Given that Boston allows secular organizations to fly their flags on city flag poles, they ruled that Boston was operating their flag poles as a public forum. When a government entity operates a public forum, they are greatly restricted in what they can prohibit.
If Boston is worried about flying a flag they disagree with, they have an option - to not let any organization fly their flags on city flag poles.
Jose Garcia
(2,552 posts)sarisataka
(18,221 posts)Is what SCOTUS ruled
RobinA
(9,878 posts)a flag not speech? That's WHY you fly a flag. It's as much speech as spending money, probably more so.
onenote
(42,383 posts)The issue was whether it was "government" speech. The Court, unanimously, concluded that a flag sponsored by a religious group featuring a religious symbol displayed along side all sorts of other flags (including flags of other nations and even private, non-religious groups that featured the same symbol) did not represent the government speaking and that singling out the religious group represented unconstitutional hostility, not the constitutional mandated neutrality, towards religion.
RobinA
(9,878 posts)is flying the flag, it's government speech. If I fly a Karl Marx flag, it's my speech and the government can't tell me to take it down. If the government is flying the flag it's government speech. There's no difference between flying a Christian (or any religion) flag and having the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall. I oppose both, this Supreme Court doesn't agree.
sarisataka
(18,221 posts)Supported by the Biden administration. Appears the Court is entirely correct.
The city had no policy as to what was unacceptable, a request was submitted and a city official gave approval. There had been over 280 previous requests and never was one denied previously.
Above someone made a comment about flying a McDonald's flag but flags of private businesses have been approved. The Court considered that this did not amount to the city of Boston endorsing these businesses.
Also there were flags that had connections to religion flown previously. The flag of Turkey was displayed in spite of its strong connection to Islam. The representative of the city stated that was because it was the flag of a sovereign nation, yet when asked if they would approve the flag of Vatican City, also a sovereign nation, he said it would be declined because it was used by the Catholic Church.
Given the arbitrary denial with no written policy to support it, it is more difficult to see how the case made it past the Appellate Court.
Novara
(5,755 posts)" The flag of Turkey was displayed in spite of its strong connection to Islam. The representative of the city stated that was because it was the flag of a sovereign nation, yet when asked if they would approve the flag of Vatican City, also a sovereign nation, he said it would be declined because it was used by the Catholic Church."
The SCOTUS shouldn't have taken the case in the first place. The correct decision had already been made.
sarisataka
(18,221 posts)Was completely wrong.
At the moment most are wanting to pillory SCOTUS because they ruling was about a Christian flag. However, since the approval process was entirely subjective, the next person to make approvals could have been anti-LGTBQ and started denying all requests for such flags. At that point the same ones condemning SCOTUS would be demanding a ruling that subjective denials are unconstitutional.
What Boston needs to do is what one justice suggests, have a written policy of what is or is not acceptable to be flown. Until then, any/all religious and/or secular flags should be allowed.
I think on April 9th they should fly two flags. The Confederate battle flag, right below a plain white flag.
Novara
(5,755 posts)They are still allowing a religious representation on government property, which is a violation of the Establishment Clause. It implies endorsement of religion by government, which is exactly WHY there is such a thing as the Establishment Clause.
Any other cause can be argued (LGBT issues, women's empowerment, whatever), but we have a specific Constitutional prohibition regarding government endorsement of religion. That's why this decision is wrong.
To be consistent with SCOTUS' ruling AND the Establishment Clause, they'd have to fly flags representing all religions, not just this one. And I'd still argue that it's government endorsing religion. I mean, what about atheists?
sarisataka
(18,221 posts)Same for Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Satanism, Hinduism, Scientology, Mami Wata or Jediism....
Now if the city has a policy that says "flags unacceptable to be flown include hate groups, terrorist organizations, flags with more than 50% brown in them... or flags specific to any religious group or organization" I believe that would be acceptable. Also that would allow for national flags that have religious symbols, e g Vatican City, Israel, Turkey, Iran, to be flown as they are not specific.
RobinA
(9,878 posts)isn't religious so that's one difference. No matter, though. As policy I would be in favor of the government flying no interest group flags whatsoever. In fact, I would prefer it. I'm a card carrying ACLU member and I do not think an ACLU flag should be flown by government. Government should only be flying government flags, which includes flags of other nations. Yes, Vatican City if they are a sovereign nation.
But Constitution-wise, in my book government should not be flying religious flags, and that includes a flag of atheism if there were such a thing. Religious flag flying by government is an overt display of religion. By government.
SouthernDem4ever
(6,475 posts)So the flags aren't raised, cared for or on government property? If they are, WTF are they talking about?
reACTIONary
(5,749 posts)... and it is government property, and they care for it, and they allow groups to stage concerts and plays, they have created a public forum and can't deny use based on content. Those plays, concerts, etc. are not government speech.
Same for a flag poll if they allow groups to fly their flags.
And that is why this was a unanimous decision.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)J_William_Ryan
(1,736 posts)It does express government speech in that religion is being endorsed and promoted by government, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
onenote
(42,383 posts)Polybius
(15,239 posts)I can never argue with a unanimous ruling by the SC.
SKKY
(11,773 posts)...as long as they also allow the rainbow flag, or whatever other flags, to be raised as well.
Mysterian
(4,525 posts)Boston must have an imbecile for legal counsel.
Jose Garcia
(2,552 posts)Sometimes staff have to do what their bosses want rather than what is smart.
catsudon
(839 posts)no text