City denies Freedom from Religion access

[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.

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

Except that wasn't the reason they denied the permit. Even if it was, they cannot deny a permit simply because the speech is disruptive. WBC has won every single court battle where a city attempted to deny them the right to protest even though everyone knows their conduct is disruptive.

Thus, it is irrelevant. You rally should read the link I posted explaining the issues before you start pontificating useless bullshit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Umm, what? Didn't SCOTUS just hand down a decision that confirmed that saying prayers before a tow meeting is not establishing a religion? Are you ever going to pull your head out of your ass and post from the real world?

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.

No, it should be allowed because it is free speech. Religion, or the lack thereof, has nothing to do with it.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

Except that wasn't the reason they denied the permit. Even if it was, they cannot deny a permit simply because the speech is disruptive. WBC has won every single court battle where a city attempted to deny them the right to protest even though everyone knows their conduct is disruptive.

Thus, it is irrelevant. You rally should read the link I posted explaining the issues before you start pontificating useless bullshit.

well no they can, and just tell them they have to move it to another date and time.

useless bullshit is part of your Mo. You shouldnt whine about it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Except that wasn't the reason they denied the permit. Even if it was, they cannot deny a permit simply because the speech is disruptive. WBC has won every single court battle where a city attempted to deny them the right to protest even though everyone knows their conduct is disruptive.

Thus, it is irrelevant. You rally should read the link I posted explaining the issues before you start pontificating useless bullshit.

well no they can, and just tell them they have to move it to another date and time.

useless bullshit is part of your Mo. You shouldnt whine about it.

Feel free to explain that logic in the light of all the WBC cases that affirmed their right to protest funerals at the date and time they occur.

I won't hold my breath while you try to weasel your way out of the corner you just painted yourself into.

By the way, I am not the one whining, I am the one defending free speech. You are the one trying to claim that a city has the right to deny permits based on idiotic reasons.

 

[Missourian]

The city already pays a city attorney to handle such things. Let 'em sue.

If they were denied due to the possibility of disrupting a scheduled and permitted event, they haven't a leg to stand on.

 

[Pete7469]

Except that wasn't the reason they denied the permit. Even if it was, they cannot deny a permit simply because the speech is disruptive. WBC has won every single court battle where a city attempted to deny them the right to protest even though everyone knows their conduct is disruptive.

Thus, it is irrelevant. You rally should read the link I posted explaining the issues before you start pontificating useless bullshit.

well no they can, and just tell them they have to move it to another date and time.

useless bullshit is part of your Mo. You shouldnt whine about it.

Feel free to explain that logic in the light of all the WBC cases that affirmed their right to protest funerals at the date and time they occur.

I won't hold my breath while you try to weasel your way out of the corner you just painted yourself into.

By the way, I am not the one whining, I am the one defending free speech. You are the one trying to claim that a city has the right to deny permits based on idiotic reasons.

It suprises me he'd even support the idea of an anti-religious hate group being barred from acting like assholes anywhere. Perhaps he's not the anti-religious bigot most bed wetters are.

I wonder if his tune would change if they were occutard trash? It really isn't that much of a suprise seeing a lib advance the anti-speech agenda, it's just that they're usually only in favor of it when people they hate are talking.