Connect with us

Politics

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian group in Boston flag flap

Boston violated the free speech rights of a Christian group by refusing to fly a flag bearing the image of a cross at City Hall as part of a program that let private groups use the flagpole while holding events in the plaza below, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday.

The 9-0 decision, authored by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, overturned a lower court’s ruling that the rejection of Camp Constitution and its director Harold Shurtleff did not violate their rights to freedom to speech under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. President Joe Biden’s administration backed Camp Constitution in the case.

Boston’s flag-raising program was aimed at promoting diversity and tolerance among the city’s different communities. In turning down Camp Constitution, Boston had said that raising the cross flag could appear to violate another part of the First Amendment that bars governmental endorsement of a particular religion.

As a result of the litigation, Boston last October halted the program to ensure that the city cannot be compelled to “publicize messages antithetical to its own.” Boston has said that requiring it to open the flagpole to “all comers” could force it to raise flags promoting division or intolerance, such as a swastika or a terrorist group.

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has taken an expansive view of religious rights and has been increasingly receptive to arguments that governments are acting with hostility toward religion.

At issue was whether the flagpole became a public forum meriting free speech protections under the First Amendment to bar discrimination based on viewpoint, as the plaintiffs claimed, or whether it represented merely a conduit for government speech not warranting such protection, as Boston claimed.

Breyer, who is retiring at the end of the court’s current term, wrote that Boston’s “lack of meaningful involvement in the selection of flags or the crafting of their messages leads us to classify the flag raisings as private, not government, speech.” Denying Camp Constitution’s request “discriminated based on religious viewpoint” and violated the First Amendment’s free speech protections, Breyer added.

In a concurring opinion, conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch agreed with the outcome of the case, but not Breyer’s reasoning, which they suggested may not always ferret out when a government is “surreptitiously engaged” in censorship of private speech.

The dispute arose over Boston’s practice of allowing private groups to hold flag-raising events using one of three flagpoles on the plaza in front of City Hall. From 2005 to 2017, Boston approved all 284 applications it received before rebuffing Camp Constitution. The vast majority of flags were those of foreign countries, but also included one commemorating LGBT Pride in Boston.

Camp Constitution, whose stated mission is “to enhance understanding of our Judeo-Christian moral heritage” as well as “free enterprise,” sued in 2018 over its rejection. It was represented in the case by Liberty Counsel, a conservative Christian legal group.

“This case is so much more significant than a flag,” Liberty Counsel attorney Mat Staver said. “Boston openly discriminated against viewpoints it disfavored when it opened the flagpoles to all applicants and then excluded Christian viewpoints. Government cannot censor religious viewpoints under the guise of government speech.”

The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the city’s control of the flag-raising program made it government speech.

Among other topics, Camp Constitution’s website posts materials questioning the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and claiming that last year’s U.S. Capitol attack was actually a cover up for “massive” 2020 election fraud. Its website also posts materials blaming Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on provocations by the “Biden and Obama administrations” seeking to integrate Ukraine into NATO and calling Japan’s 1941 Pearl Harbor attack and al Qaeda’s Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States “carefully orchestrated false flags.”

(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)

– Advertisement –



Source
U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian group in Boston flag flap is written by Wolf Daily for wolfdaily.com

Continue Reading

Featured

BREAKING: JOE BIDEN DROPS OUT!

BREAKING: JOE BIDEN DROPS OUT!

(ConcernedPatriot.com) – Joe Biden has decided not to run for reelection.

On Sunday afternoon, Biden declared his plan and promised to provide further details shortly.

“It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President,” Biden’s statement read. “And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.”

Although Vice President Kamala Harris was expressly endorsed as his successor, he congratulated her in his statement for “being an extraordinary partner in all this work.”

But Biden later gave “my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year” in a statement uploaded on X.

Then, in a powerful message to Democrats, Biden urged them to unite and defeat Trump, emphasizing the importance of collective action in the upcoming election.

Do you believe VP Kamala Harris will be the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee?

Copyright 2024. ConcernedPatriot.com

Continue Reading

Featured

9 Secret Service Failures that Led to Trump Almost Being Assassinated

9 Secret Service Failures that Led to Trump Almost Being Assassinated

(ConcernedPatriot.com) – This past Saturday, during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, former President Donald Trump came dangerously close to being assassinated in what is believed to be the biggest Secret Service blunder in forty years.

The fact remains that the organization tasked with defending Trump was unable to prevent the gunman, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, from setting up shop less than 500 feet away, killing Corey Comperatore, a 50-year-old volunteer fire chief, and hitting President Trump in the ear.

Numerous investigations are in progress, but there have been few replies yet. Kimberly Cheatle, the director of the Secret Service, is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee on Monday.

The following nine significant security lapses by the Secret Service that we are now aware of require attention:

1. There was an apparent security concern from the rooftop from where Crooks fired shots at Trump. According to NBC News, the Secret Service had recognized the rooftop as a possible point of vulnerability in the days leading up to the rally.

Why was the building given to local law enforcement and not included in the Secret Service’s inside perimeter? Why wasn’t the building’s perimeter secured? How did rally participants see Crooks ascending to the rooftop and positioning himself before the police could stop him?

When did the Secret Service’s counter-sniper teams learn about him, and why weren’t any of them designated to keep an eye on the rooftop?

2. The Secret Service allowed local police enforcement to be housed inside the structure instead of outside on the roof. According to Cheatle, the choice was to house local law enforcement inside the structure instead of on top of it.

She asserted that the roof’s “slope” was a “safety factor” in the decision. Dan Bongino, a podcast presenter and former Secret Service agent, has dubbed that “bullsh-t.”

In his July 18, 2024, podcast episode, Bongino stated that he had heard from sources that local police snipers were placed inside because they were pitted against counter-snipers and thought they could accomplish the task from the building’s second story.

This raises the question: Why weren’t counter-snipers on the rooftop watching for would-be snipers?

3. The building’s exterior was not secure, which gave Crooks access to the rooftop. Who was guarding the building from the outside or the rooftop from below, even if local police snipers were not stationed on the rooftop?

Did local law enforcement officers have a watch duty at the building? The Washington Post stated that although the agency had planned ahead, local police had informed the Secret Service before Saturday that they did not have the means to place a patrol car and officer outside the facility.

Why didn’t the Secret Service devise a backup strategy? How did Crooks manage to go to the top unhindered and get a direct line of sight with Trump?

4. About three hours before Trump spoke, at around 3 p.m., local law police noticed Crooks near a magnetometer with a range finder. After that, they lost sight of him. Why hadn’t law enforcement or the Secret Service questioned or followed him earlier?

CNN reports that Crooks caused a stir when he passed past magnetometers erected to check participants for the presence of a range finder. This device resembles a tiny pair of binoculars and is frequently used by the military or hunters to locate targets.

According to Bongino, there is disagreement over whether he used magnetometers in real life. Nevertheless, he was supposedly seen close to them.

The questions are: Who saw Crooks using the range finder, and who was informed of the sighting? Why wasn’t he followed up with or questioned at that point?

5. Crooks was not stopped or questioned even though local law enforcement officers reportedly saw him about an hour before Trump was scheduled to speak.

They saw him hanging outside the building, scoping the rooftop, returning with a backpack, and pulling out a range finder. They reported him to a command center.

It is unclear to whom Crooks was reported, whether the Secret Service knew about him then, and why he was not apprehended or questioned in light of his suspicious activity.

How was he permitted to ascend onto the rooftop without being stopped if he was under the notice of the Secret Service or local law enforcement?

6. About 20 minutes before Trump entered the stage, at 5:52 p.m., the Secret Service allegedly saw Crooks on the rooftop. Despite this, the agency did not prevent Trump from taking the platform.

At 5:52 p.m., ABC News reported he was spotted on the rooftop by Secret Service snipers. Why was Trump permitted to speak on stage even though?

When a local police officer observed Crooks on the rooftop sometime around 6:02 p.m., it was said that he pointed his gun at him, which caused him to tumble back down and hurt himself.

Were the Secret Service snipers present when this occurred, and if so, why were they inactive at that time?

7. The Secret Service snipers did nothing before Crooks fired at Trump, even though he had drawn his gun and positioned himself to shoot him.

Why wasn’t he neutralized before he could shoot Trump, even after the Secret Service recognized him as a threat and after he took out a gun and took up position?

Why was there an 11-second delay between Crooks’ initial shot at Trump and the Secret Service snipers’ fatal shot, assuming they had seen him at 5:52 p.m.?

8. Trump arrived on stage at 6:02 p.m., and for ten minutes, no action was taken to remove him from the platform until Crooks was able to open fire on him at 6:12 p.m.

Why wasn’t Trump removed from the stage, even if Secret Service snipers saw Crooks on the rooftop and were unsure of what to do?

Who decided not to try to remove him, and was there an attempt to do so?

9. No drone monitoring was conducted during the event, which would have allowed law police to catch Crooks scaling the rooftop earlier.

Despite the Secret Service’s capacity to request drone monitoring, Bongino claims no drone was used to record the event.

Was that capability requested by the Secret Service? If yes, who disputed it and to what extent?

On Monday, Cheatle—who has acknowledged that she has no plans to retire despite receiving calls for her resignation—will have many questions to respond to.

Should the Secret Service Director be immediately fired?

Copyright 2024. ConcernedPatriot.com

Continue Reading

Featured

Far-Left Streamer ‘Destiny’ PROMOTES KILLING TRUMP SUPPORTERS

Far-Left Streamer 'Destiny' PROMOTES KILLING TRUMP SUPPORTERS

(ConcernedPatriot.com) – Over the past eight years, leftists who have called for violence against President Trump and his followers have become all too familiar to us.

Now that an attempt on Trump’s life was foiled at his Pennsylvania rally the previous weekend, we must give these unlawful threats against the former president and his allies more careful thought.

A well-known far-left live streamer named Destiny—a man with a female name—went on a hateful rampage against the late Trump supporter Corey Comperatore during the past week after Comperatore was struck by a bullet that was accidentally fired at the president.

It didn’t take long for blue-haired lefties like Destiny to start joyfully celebrating the death of a Trump fan while lamenting the fact that the assassin didn’t manage to kill the former president.

His words promoting violence led to his (supposedly) demonetization on X, and he was also temporarily suspended from Kick.com, a well-known streaming service, for making the same heinous statements.

Many conservatives supported Destiny’s right to make such remarks as an example of the First Amendment.

But Destiny changed his tone during the RNC, going from endorsing violence to openly endorsing political assassinations.

Watch:

After facing a series of personal challenges, including a highly publicized divorce, Destiny suffered a dramatic meltdown.

During an impromptu interview with The Gateway Pundit journalist Elijah Schaffer during the RNC in Milwaukee, WI, the host of The Young Turks, Ana Kasparian, went out of her way to denounce these remarks even though some conservatives were quick to accuse all liberals of thinking the same way.

It’s alarming to see someone with Destiny’s level of popularity advocating for political violence. However, it’s heartening to see progressive colleagues like Ana Kasparian criticize him for his deplorable remarks and serve as a reminder that, occasionally, people have public breakdowns.

Should far-left liberals promoting violence, like Destiny, be immediately de-platformed and demonetized?

Copyright 2024. ConcernedPatriot.com

Continue Reading

Trending