City denies Freedom from Religion access

[Quantum Windbag]

To all the hacks who think I am a right wing extremist, the city is 100% wrong here, and they will lose so fast in court that they won't know what hit them.

April 15, 2014

Dear Mr. Marshall:

The City of Warren through the Downtown Development Authority has received your request to use space in the atrium. It is my understanding that you are affiliated with Freedom from Religion, a group that has objected to the Nativity Scene, the Prayer Station in the atrium and the Annual Day of Prayer in front of city hall.

All of these events are allowed because of the right to freedom of religion constitutional amendment. We cannot and will not restrict this right for any religion to use the atrium, as long as the activity is open to all religions.

Freedom from Religion is not a religion. It has no tenets, no place of worship and no congregation.

To my way of thinking, your group is strictly an anti-religion group intending to deprive all organized religions of their constitutional freedoms or at least discourage the practice of religion. The Citv of Warren cannot allow this.

Also, I believe it is your group’s intention to disrupt those who participate in the Prayer Station which would also be a violation of the freedom of religion amendment.

For these reasons, I cannot approve of your request.

Sincerely,

James R. Fouts
Mayor of Warren

PDF of complaint.

 

[Mr. H.]

To my way of thinking...

...I believe it is your group’s intention...

Not the best choice of phrases. Still, I'm curious why you think the city is 100% wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To my way of thinking...

...I believe it is your group’s intention...

Not the best choice of phrases. Still, I'm curious why you think the city is 100% wrong.

Because they are denying them access based on the content of their speech, which is unconstitutional.

Here is a constitutional law professor, one who has actually written briefs that were cited by the Supreme Court, who can explain the issues better than I can.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...nding-to-discourage-the-practice-of-religion/

 

[Mr. H.]

Thanks for that. Well, evidently the group has in the past objected to the Nativity Scene, the Prayer Station in the atrium and the Annual Day of Prayer in front of city hall. Were they not also wanting to deny others some type of access?

All the hacks seem to think that I too am a Right Wing extremist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks for that. Well, evidently the group has in the past objected to the Nativity Scene, the Prayer Station in the atrium and the Annual Day of Prayer in front of city hall. Were they not also wanting to deny others some type of access?

All the hacks seem to think that I too am a Right Wing extremist.

Yes, they were, but that doesn't make the city right.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't see the problem, they were wanting to be in an event that was for religious organizations, if they want to use the facilities at a different time and were refused, that would be a problem.

 

[Mr. H.]

Thanks for that. Well, evidently the group has in the past objected to the Nativity Scene, the Prayer Station in the atrium and the Annual Day of Prayer in front of city hall. Were they not also wanting to deny others some type of access?

All the hacks seem to think that I too am a Right Wing extremist.

Yes, they were, but that doesn't make the city right.

Nor, accordingly, does it make them wrong.

But you are correct in that this may end up in a court of law.

 

[hazlnut]

To my way of thinking...

...I believe it is your group’s intention...

Not the best choice of phrases. Still, I'm curious why you think the city is 100% wrong.

Because they are denying them access based on the content of their speech, which is unconstitutional.

Here is a constitutional law professor, one who has actually written briefs that were cited by the Supreme Court, who can explain the issues better than I can.

?The City of Warren cannot allow? access to space by a group ?intending to ? discourage the practice of religion? - The Washington Post

It's not clear in the letter, but it seems that there is some sort of conflicting event and the Mayor believes that the group intends to cause a disruption -- which the city would have an interest in preventing (which is why permits are issued).

But the intent to cause a disruption is not clear, more info is needed.

However if the other groups' permits have taken the space to capacity, then the anti-religeon folks can just go on another day.

 

[hazlnut]

The Westboro Baptist have made a living suing cities when they weren't issued permits.

 

[Pete7469]

As repulsive as I find the "freedom from religion" pukes, they should have a right to assemble and regurgitate their hate speech.

No doubt their intentions are too disrupt, annoy, instigate and inflame hostility.

If we deny them that opportunity, we lose our rights to do the same at moonbat events.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To my way of thinking...

...I believe it is your group’s intention...

Not the best choice of phrases. Still, I'm curious why you think the city is 100% wrong.

Because they are denying them access based on the content of their speech, which is unconstitutional.

Here is a constitutional law professor, one who has actually written briefs that were cited by the Supreme Court, who can explain the issues better than I can.

?The City of Warren cannot allow? access to space by a group ?intending to ? discourage the practice of religion? - The Washington Post

It's not clear in the letter, but it seems that there is some sort of conflicting event and the Mayor believes that the group intends to cause a disruption -- which the city would have an interest in preventing (which is why permits are issued).

But the intent to cause a disruption is not clear, more info is needed.

However if the other groups' permits have taken the space to capacity, then the anti-religeon folks can just go on another day.

There is no conflicting event, and the belief that they intend to cause a disruption is irrelevant.

 

[depotoo]

Because they are denying them access based on the content of their speech, which is unconstitutional.

Here is a constitutional law professor, one who has actually written briefs that were cited by the Supreme Court, who can explain the issues better than I can.

?The City of Warren cannot allow? access to space by a group ?intending to ? discourage the practice of religion? - The Washington Post

It's not clear in the letter, but it seems that there is some sort of conflicting event and the Mayor believes that the group intends to cause a disruption -- which the city would have an interest in preventing (which is why permits are issued).

But the intent to cause a disruption is not clear, more info is needed.

However if the other groups' permits have taken the space to capacity, then the anti-religeon folks can just go on another day.

There is no conflicting event, and the belief that they intend to cause a disruption is irrelevant.

If indeed they have been disruptive in the past..
would you think it ok for the city to issue a permit for a memorial and a kids party at the same time, next to one another?

 

[jon_berzerk]

To all the hacks who think I am a right wing extremist, the city is 100% wrong here, and they will lose so fast in court that they won't know what hit them.

April 15, 2014

Dear Mr. Marshall:

The City of Warren through the Downtown Development Authority has received your request to use space in the atrium. It is my understanding that you are affiliated with Freedom from Religion, a group that has objected to the Nativity Scene, the Prayer Station in the atrium and the Annual Day of Prayer in front of city hall.

All of these events are allowed because of the right to freedom of religion constitutional amendment. We cannot and will not restrict this right for any religion to use the atrium, as long as the activity is open to all religions.

Freedom from Religion is not a religion. It has no tenets, no place of worship and no congregation.

To my way of thinking, your group is strictly an anti-religion group intending to deprive all organized religions of their constitutional freedoms or at least discourage the practice of religion. The Citv of Warren cannot allow this.

Also, I believe it is your group’s intention to disrupt those who participate in the Prayer Station which would also be a violation of the freedom of religion amendment.

For these reasons, I cannot approve of your request.

Sincerely,

James R. Fouts
Mayor of Warren

PDF of complaint.

their freedom of speech is not denied

they will just have to set up their own

annual anti religion day

plus i imagine they can come to the event and float around

passing out their literature

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Sounds like the paradox of speech calling for the denial of freedom of speech.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem isn't the city refusing to allow the plaintiff a Reason Station on city property, but allowing a Prayer Station on city property in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Indeed, the Reason Station should be allowed because it is in fact not 'religion,' as the mayor confirmed:

Freedom from Religion is not a religion. It has no tenets,
no place of worship and no congregation. To my way of
thinking, your group is strictly an anti-religion group
intending to deprive all organized religions of their
constitutional freedoms or at least discourage the practice
of religion. The City of Warren cannot allow this.

However, the mayor's 'way of thinking' is wrong with regard to the notion that the Reason Station would “deprive all organized religions of their constitutional freedoms,” as only government has the authority to potentially violate the Free Exercise Clause, not private persons or organizations, as the First Amendment applies restrictions only to governments.

With regard to the Reason Station, therefore, this is a free speech issue, not a religious liberty issue, where if the government seeks to disallow this form of speech it needs to have a compelling reason to do so – and the inane notion that to allow the Reason Station on city property would “deprive all organized religions of their constitutional freedoms” is not a compelling governmental reason because there's no evidence such a 'deprivation' would manifest, and given the fact that the Prayer Station constitutes an Establishment Clause violation to begin with. We know this to be true by the mayor's own admission, where the Prayer Station exists to promote religion in the context of government approval.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Sounds like the paradox of speech calling for the denial of freedom of speech.

There's no paradox there.

Calling for what you refer to as a "denial of freedom of speech" is an example of free speech.

Doing it is not.

 

[Plasmaball]

Because they are denying them access based on the content of their speech, which is unconstitutional.

Here is a constitutional law professor, one who has actually written briefs that were cited by the Supreme Court, who can explain the issues better than I can.

?The City of Warren cannot allow? access to space by a group ?intending to ? discourage the practice of religion? - The Washington Post

It's not clear in the letter, but it seems that there is some sort of conflicting event and the Mayor believes that the group intends to cause a disruption -- which the city would have an interest in preventing (which is why permits are issued).

But the intent to cause a disruption is not clear, more info is needed.

However if the other groups' permits have taken the space to capacity, then the anti-religeon folks can just go on another day.

There is no conflicting event, and the belief that they intend to cause a disruption is irrelevant.

It is relevant....it gives cause to deny.

 

[OriginalShroom]

The problem isn't the city refusing to allow the plaintiff a Reason Station on city property, but allowing a Prayer Station on city property in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

What utter horseshit.
Allowing some one to use public, tax payer supported property for religious reasons is not the Government "Establishing" religion.

That is just another Liberal Lie that has been allowed to fester until it's become accepted.

But if you want to use that reasoning to ban Pro-Religion activities, then it is logical that Anti-Religion activities should also be banned since the Freedom of Religion is guaranteed and the Government can not endorse or establish an Anti-religion position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not clear in the letter, but it seems that there is some sort of conflicting event and the Mayor believes that the group intends to cause a disruption -- which the city would have an interest in preventing (which is why permits are issued).

But the intent to cause a disruption is not clear, more info is needed.

However if the other groups' permits have taken the space to capacity, then the anti-religeon folks can just go on another day.

There is no conflicting event, and the belief that they intend to cause a disruption is irrelevant.

If indeed they have been disruptive in the past..
would you think it ok for the city to issue a permit for a memorial and a kids party at the same time, next to one another?

Why would I have a problem with that? If I do have a problem, which am I supposed to allow? What would be my argument for denying either one in favor of the other?

Like I said, the belief that they might be disruptive is irrelevant. If the city opens a venue to the public it has to allow everyone who asks to use that venue, regardless of the message.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To all the hacks who think I am a right wing extremist, the city is 100% wrong here, and they will lose so fast in court that they won't know what hit them.

April 15, 2014

Dear Mr. Marshall:

The City of Warren through the Downtown Development Authority has received your request to use space in the atrium. It is my understanding that you are affiliated with Freedom from Religion, a group that has objected to the Nativity Scene, the Prayer Station in the atrium and the Annual Day of Prayer in front of city hall.

All of these events are allowed because of the right to freedom of religion constitutional amendment. We cannot and will not restrict this right for any religion to use the atrium, as long as the activity is open to all religions.

Freedom from Religion is not a religion. It has no tenets, no place of worship and no congregation.

To my way of thinking, your group is strictly an anti-religion group intending to deprive all organized religions of their constitutional freedoms or at least discourage the practice of religion. The Citv of Warren cannot allow this.

Also, I believe it is your group’s intention to disrupt those who participate in the Prayer Station which would also be a violation of the freedom of religion amendment.

For these reasons, I cannot approve of your request.

Sincerely,

James R. Fouts
Mayor of Warren

PDF of complaint.

their freedom of speech is not denied

they will just have to set up their own

annual anti religion day

plus i imagine they can come to the event and float around

passing out their literature

Wrong on all counts.