Posted on Jan 18, 2022
Boston appears headed for Supreme Court loss over refusal to fly a Christian flag
1.08K
14
3
6
6
0
The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed prepared to rule that the city of Boston was wrong when it refused to let an organization fly a Christian flag in front of city hall.
The justices heard about 90 minutes of oral argument in a case that invited the court to decide whether the flagpole conveyed a government message or whether it was a forum open to all comers.
Boston said the flagpole was an expression of the city's views, and therefore flying the Christian flag would amount to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. "Governments speak from government-owned flagpoles," said Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, the city's lawyer.
But Boston's legal position was opposed by the Biden administration, which said the city could not censor a religious message in what amounts to a kind of public forum.
The justices heard about 90 minutes of oral argument in a case that invited the court to decide whether the flagpole conveyed a government message or whether it was a forum open to all comers.
Boston said the flagpole was an expression of the city's views, and therefore flying the Christian flag would amount to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. "Governments speak from government-owned flagpoles," said Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, the city's lawyer.
But Boston's legal position was opposed by the Biden administration, which said the city could not censor a religious message in what amounts to a kind of public forum.
Boston appears headed for Supreme Court loss over refusal to fly a Christian flag
Posted from nbcnews.com
Supreme Court
Religion
Christianity
1st Amendment
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
This began with making the spot open for private organizations. Once they started the practice, they have to do so for all organizations. As often happens in life and particularly government, there are consequences to every action. Foresight is not easy
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Boston's wrong. If they allow any organization to fly their flag, then they must allow all. That would include both Christians and Satanists. They cannot discriminate based on the content of the speech, in this case Christian speech.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
..."Three flagpoles stand in front of city hall, two for the flags of the United States and the state of Massachusetts. On the third, Boston's city flag is normally raised, but the city makes the spot available for private organizations that conduct commemorations in the plaza in front of the building to celebrate the community's diversity.
The case involved a request from Harold Shurtleff, founder of Camp Constitution, which says part of its mission "is to enhance understanding of the country's Judeo-Christian heritage." When he sought permission to fly what he described as "a Christian flag" — a cross in a blue square on a white field — the city turned him down. So he sued.
His lawyer, Mathew Staver, told the court that the city's message was, "All applicants are welcome, except religious viewpoints." He said that amounted to censorship, because the flagpole was a kind of public forum.
Some of the justices questioned that position. "Go look at the city plaza, flags right in front of city hall. Of course, you think it has something to do with the city," said Stephen Breyer, who was a federal appeals court judge in Boston.
"Why would you think this is anything other than the government flying the flag?" asked Elena Kagan, the former dean of Harvard Law School, located across the Charles River in Cambridge.
She said a city must be able to set limits on what it displays on its flagpoles.
"Does the city have to say yes to a Swastika?" she asked.
Staver said the city can set limits but cannot discriminate against viewpoints in what he said was a public forum. "If the city allows a Black Lives Matter flag, then it will probably have to allow a Proud Boys flag. That's just what the First Amendment requires."
..."Three flagpoles stand in front of city hall, two for the flags of the United States and the state of Massachusetts. On the third, Boston's city flag is normally raised, but the city makes the spot available for private organizations that conduct commemorations in the plaza in front of the building to celebrate the community's diversity.
The case involved a request from Harold Shurtleff, founder of Camp Constitution, which says part of its mission "is to enhance understanding of the country's Judeo-Christian heritage." When he sought permission to fly what he described as "a Christian flag" — a cross in a blue square on a white field — the city turned him down. So he sued.
His lawyer, Mathew Staver, told the court that the city's message was, "All applicants are welcome, except religious viewpoints." He said that amounted to censorship, because the flagpole was a kind of public forum.
Some of the justices questioned that position. "Go look at the city plaza, flags right in front of city hall. Of course, you think it has something to do with the city," said Stephen Breyer, who was a federal appeals court judge in Boston.
"Why would you think this is anything other than the government flying the flag?" asked Elena Kagan, the former dean of Harvard Law School, located across the Charles River in Cambridge.
She said a city must be able to set limits on what it displays on its flagpoles.
"Does the city have to say yes to a Swastika?" she asked.
Staver said the city can set limits but cannot discriminate against viewpoints in what he said was a public forum. "If the city allows a Black Lives Matter flag, then it will probably have to allow a Proud Boys flag. That's just what the First Amendment requires."
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google