Justice Department sues New Jersey synagogue protesters using law meant to protect abortion clinics

[Missourian]

I did not know such a Fed law existed before this article, actually.

Have you formed an opinion?

 

[Zincwarrior]

the law CLEARLY states houses of worship also, so much for novel.

Novel as in I don't think its been done before.

Have you formed an opinion?

Yep, personally I think its a good move.

 

[Missourian]

Yep, personally I think its a good move.

For once I can see why you might think so...

...here at least were balancing one first amendment right with another.

The religious freedom vs. the right to public protest.

But, as with the use of this law against abortion protesters, we are at loggerheads.

The GOVERNMENT cannot interfere with freedom of religion. But public protestors can and should be allowed to protest on public sidewalks in front of a Synagogue, an abortion clinic or any other business or institution.

It the protestors physically obstruct entry, that is already covered by other laws...

"A protestor cannot legally obstruct a person from entering a business if they are on private property and have been asked to leave. While individuals have the right to protest on public sidewalks and other public spaces, they do not have the right to block building entrances or physically interfere with people attempting to enter a business."

No special law is required.

 

[pknopp]

if the law as designed "specifically prohibits the use of force and physical obstruction to interfere with people at both reproductive health centers or houses of worship." then it is useful when there is no physical assault, just obstruction.

The article notes no obstruction.

 

[pknopp]

Why do people who are attending church deserve less security than people attending murder clinics?

I don't know that I argued they did. Not that something like that will stop you.

 

[rosends]

The article notes no obstruction.

nor any physical altercation. So?

 

[Concerned American]

I don't know that I argued they did. Not that something like that will stop you.

Review your post #8. Seems you take the law to be an attack on free speech when used at a synagogue, but not at all improper at a murder clinic. Not that you would admit anything that you posted in the same thread. Keep digging.

 

[Muhammed]

DOJ is using a law designed to keep abortion clinics clear of protesters, against proPalestinian protesters outside synagogues. I must say thats innovative.

Innovative?

It's sad that actually enforcing the law is a very innovative concept to you LWNJ moonbats.

You're an idiot.

 

[pknopp]

Review your post #8. Seems you take

Quit trying to impose your views and biases on others.

the law to be an attack on free speech when used at a synagogue, but not at all improper at a murder clinic. Not that you would admit anything that you posted in the same thread. Keep digging.

I said absolutely nothing of the kind.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If there were physical assaults like claimed you don't need to use this law.

If it was simply a protest it's just the Trump administration further attempting to erode the long held rights of the people.

do you or do you not support this law in regard to abortion clinics?

 

[pknopp]

do you or do you not support this law in regard to abortion clinics?

I support or do not support it regardless on how it's used.

 

[Concerned American]

Quit trying to impose your views and biases on others.

Gee are you projecting----AGAIN?

I said absolutely nothing of the kind.

Yes, you did. I might also remind you that same law has been used to prosecute pro life advocates for playing loud music across the street from murder clinics which you and your prog buddies cheered on.

 

[pknopp]

Gee are you projecting----AGAIN?

Yes, you did. I might also remind you that same law has been used to prosecute pro life advocates for playing loud music across the street from murder clinics which you and your prog buddies cheered on.

I'm pro-life so cram it.

 

[struth]

DOJ is using a law designed to keep abortion clinics clear of protesters, against proPalestinian protesters outside synagogues. I must say thats innovative.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/justice-department-sues-nj-synagogue-protesters/?tbref=hp

Justice Department sues New Jersey synagogue protesters using law meant to protect abortion clinics​

Federal officials have sued pro-Palestinian demonstrators involved in a heated protest outside a New Jersey synagogue last year, citing a law created to protect abortion clinics from obstruction and threats.

Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said the lawsuit filed Monday against two pro-Palestinian groups and some demonstrators appears to be the first time the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act has been used against protesters outside a house of worship.

Monday’s lawsuit stems from a Nov. 13 demonstration outside Congregation Ohr Torah in West Orange, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) west of Manhattan. It occurred during a real estate fair that promoted the sale of homes in Israel and in settlements in the occupied West Bank.

The Justice Department, under President Donald Trump, has signaled it would use the 1994 law against pro-Palestinian demonstrators that have protested outside synagogues over the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

“No American should be harassed, targeted, or discriminated against for peacefully practicing their religion,” U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement issued Monday. “Today’s lawsuit underscores this Department of Justice’s commitment to defending Jewish Americans — and all Americans of faith — from those who would threaten their right to worship.”

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act was passed during a time when abortion clinic protests and violence against abortion providers, such as the murder of Dr. David Gunn in 1993, was on the rise. It specifically prohibits the use of force and physical obstruction to interfere with people at both reproductive health centers or houses of worship.

Brillant! They should also bring civil rights violations against those demklan bigots attacking Jews simply trying to worship

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The GOVERNMENT cannot interfere with freedom of religion. But public protestors can and should be allowed to protest on public sidewalks in front of a Synagogue, an abortion clinic or any other business or institution.

Why do you believe this? None of the entities you listed are "the government" so what right do people have to disrupt the lives/businesses of others because they simply don't agree with them or their practices?

That's targeted harassment.

 

[Concerned American]

That's targeted harassment.

Hmmm. Unless it is a baker or florist or a Christian rally in Seattle, eh?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Hmmm. Unless it is a baker or florist or a Christian rally in Seattle, eh?

Not even comparable, but you already knew that I'm sure.

 

[Missourian]

Why do you believe this? None of the entities you listed are "the government" so what right do people have to disrupt the lives/businesses of others because they simply don't agree with them or their practices?

That's targeted harassment.

Because it is a Constitutional Right to publicly protest.

The target is the point.

As long as you are on public property and obeying the law, you have a right to protest.

The idiots of Westboro Baptist Church have a Constitutional Right to protest Soldiers funerals.

Why do I believe this?

Because of I don't, I don't believe in anyone's right to protest.

You can't have it both ways. You either believe it's a God given right for EVERYONE to peacefully protest anywhere for any reason... or you believe no one has the right.

 

[Concerned American]

Not even comparable, but you already knew that I'm sure.

Let me remind you of your previous posted message. Seems you are picking and choosing which lives and businesses to disrupt depending on YOUR agreement or lack of agreement with those businesses. So, yeah, it is comparable and I know you already knew that. Your post proves it.

None of the entities you listed are "the government" so what right do people have to disrupt the lives/businesses of others because they simply don't agree with them or their practices?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Because it is a Constitutional Right to publicly protest.

The target is the point.

As long as you are on public property and obeying the law, you have a right to protest.

The idiots of Westboro Baptist Church have a Constitutional Right to protest Soldiers funerals.

Why do I believe this?

Because of I don't, I don't believe in anyone's right to protest.

You can't have it both ways. You either believe it's a God given right for EVERYONE to peacefully protest anywhere for any reason... or you believe no one has the right.

You're mistaken. The "Constitutional" right to protest that you're referring to is in regard to our government.

The first amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Neither congregants attending services at their respective houses of worship nor women seeking reproductive services are "the government" to which the 1st amendment applies.