Reply With Quote
This actually happened:
the ACLU, they are just slimballs.
but an Attorney General's findings are not.
This actually happened:
the ACLU, they are just slimballs.
Baloney. Most bills are clear one way or the other. Give me an example.
Because they demand that the Establishment Clause and the legal authority construing it should be consistently applied?
@WC:
A lot of people feel that way. The ACLU has an ingrained habit of sticking up for unpopular folks.
Surely then, you could provide some form of proof. Please forgive me for not taking you on face value, but that's a pretty outlandish claim.
When googling failed, WC fell back on the skit as fully sufficient do entation.
Do you understand the establishment Clause?
Didn't your liberal media tell you about that when it happened years ago?
Tell us about what?
This should be fun.
If you read the article, it actually says:
Now, why would they do that? Perhaps because the Boy Scouts discriminate against atheists (and sexuals, IIRC). So, I think it's understandable that they would not want a group that excludes some groups from holding meetings at publicly funded organizations. They are free to do so in private areas.The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit to stop public schools, military bases and other publicly funded organizations from allowing Boy Scout meetings as long as the scouts insist on a religious oath.
Why are you for preferential treatment for a group that discriminates against atheists and sexuals? Because you personally don't like that group?
They can be discrimating towards those groups all they want; but then they shouldn't get extra perks that other discriminatory groups don't have.
As far as the NAMBLA links, they're obviously one-sided. Show me a case where ACLU defended actual physical and/or verbal rape. ADVOCATING allowing a man and child to have sex is different, obviously, from actually doing it (while still reprehensible, in my eyes.)
Of course I do. Do you?
Courts make the adjustment between competing interests. It's sort of in the nature of the dispute. There is adversity for the losers.
Are you just whining about the adversity, or do you think the courts are wrong?
And btw, we're all still waiting for your reply to FWD.
(To wit, the cons utional harangue you recently threatened us with...)
I don't necessarily agree with everything the ACLU has chosen to fight in courts but they have been remarkably consistent. None of the examples you provided amount to stomping on anyone's rights.
I wonder if there were any clever Fox skits on the ACLU's many cases protecting gun ownership rights?
Perhaps you missed this part?
Kinda changes the flavor of it, doesn't it?"If anyone was allowed to place a permanent, free-standing expression of his or her religious or political viewpoint at this site," said Eliasberg, "we would have no objection, but that is not the case. No other group is allowed to do that. This creates a situation in which the federal government favors Christian expression over any other."
or its famous defense of Rush Limbaugh?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html
Or hey, there's this precedent:
But hey, I guess we can throw out precedent because it's a cross! If it were, say, a Jewish star up there for fallen soldiers, well who gives a fig."The courts have consistently held," said Eliasberg, "that a permanent religious fixture on federal land is a violation of the U.S. Cons ution. An Act of Congress doesn't change that. This cross must come down, and no amount of political maneuvering or grandstanding will prevent that."
If there was a giant publicly funded NAMBLA monument on federal land, the ACLU would sue to have it taken down too.
If the Young Muslims or the Little Appendages Camp of Flying Spaghetti Monster Kids were meeting in public parks for a discount, the ACLU would sue as well.
Curiously, any Establishment Clause issues in that case have been largely obviated by litigation concerning the permissibility of a federal law purporting to transfer the land on which the cross sits into private hands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_LimbaughOn December 12, 2005, Judge David F. Crow delivered a ruling prohibiting the State of Florida from questioning Limbaugh's physicians about "the medical condition of the patient and any information disclosed to the health care prac ioner by the patient in the course of the care and treatment of the patient."[128]
I'm sure that the defenders of the Establishment Clause as protector of public displays of religious iconography would wholeheartedly support, say, the erection of a large inverted pentagram.Or hey, there's this precedent
But hey, I guess we can throw out precedent because it's a cross! If it were, say, a Jewish star up there for fallen soldiers, well who gives a fig.
Obviously another example of the ACLU stomping on the cons utional rights of others to push an agenda.
Which, really, was a giant You to the First Amendment. Congress played some funny games with the land that memorial is on, to be sure. As if we can just hand over a tiny area of land to a private cause, in the middle of a large amount of federal land.
Don't they have that first amendment right in public? Are you saying that our first amendment rights stop on public land? Think about the line you are drawing.
It's not that at all. I am for the rights of freedom of association without being pressured to accept people they don't want, and hunted down and persecuted if they don't bend to other people's desires.
Watch where you place that line at. It could then be argued that any group who is not 100% genized can be barred from public land. Nearly all parks are public land. Where else would you have Boy Scouts have their massive Jamborees?
Consider this; wiki: Freedom of Association
United States Cons ution
Main article: United States Cons ution
While the United States Cons ution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to pe ion the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.
Intimate Association
A fundamental element of personal liberty is the right to choose to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships. These intimate human relationships are considered forms of "intimate association." The paradigmatic example of "intimate association" is the family.
Expressive Association
Expressive associations are groups that engage in activities protected by the First Amendment—speech, assembly, press, pe ioning government for a redress of grievances, and the free exercise of religion. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, the Supreme Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression. However, in the subsequent decisions of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view. The government cannot, through the use of anti-discrimination laws, force groups to include a message that they do not wish to convey.
Limitation
However, the implicit First Amendment right of association in the U.S. Cons ution has been limited by court rulings. For example, it is illegal in the United States to consider race in the making and enforcement of private contracts other than marriage or taking affirmative action. This limit on freedom of association results from Section 1981 of le 42 of the United States Code, as balanced against the First Amendment in the 1976 decision of Runyon v. McCrary.[3]
The holding of Runyon is that the defendant private schools were free to express and teach their views, such as white separatism, but could not discriminate on the basis of race in the provision of services to the general public. So, if the plaintiff African-American children wished to attend such private schools, and were clearly qualified in all respects (but race) and were able to pay the fees, and were willing to attend despite the fact that the school's professed principles were inconsistent with admitting them, then the schools were required by Section 1981 to admit them. This doctrine rests on the interpretation of a private contract as a "badge" of slavery when either party considers race in choosing the other.
Governments often require contracts of adhesion with private en ies for licensing purposes, such as with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority for stock market trading in the 1938 Maloney Act amendments to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These contracts often bar association with banned members, as can be seen in United States v. Merriam, 108 F.3d 1162.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions