Posted on 12/14/2017 2:30:20 PM PST by detective
A federal appeals court judge on December 8 denied the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington’s request for an injunction against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), challenging the agency’s refusal to allow the Archdiocese to purchase advertising on D.C. buses that featured a Christmas message. The complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on November 28, stated that, “the Archdiocese wishes to access a widely available advertising platform on the exterior of public 2 buses as they traverse public thoroughfares to convey a simple message of hope in connection with the Christmas season.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
The First Amendment says this judge is full of ——!
Shaving cream....be nice and clean....shave every day and you'll always look keen.
Muzzie Ramadan is okay though.
There are Islam ads on Public Transportation buses in San Francisco here.
Just leaving this here for everyone to know..
Bet this POS judge wouldn’t allow the MTA to ban a Muslim, gay or trans ad.
Well, hopefully at least the churches get decorated with a message... sigh.
evidently, the “freedom of speech” doesn’t apply to the “freedom of religion”.
Here come da judge, here come da judge...
Nobody is stopping sharia for all are they!?
“:^)
Her ruling is insipidly stupid and irrational.
All advertising is issues-oriented.
All she had to say was that the bus company had the right to deny whatever advertising they wanted - but she couldn’t say THAT because, being the socialist she is, she wants advertisers to be forced to support issue-oriented ads for politics she agrees with.
So instead she goes to the website and because it sez Jesus she “knows” it’s religious - therefore an “issue” and therefore haram.
Never mind that the archdiocese’ arguments are correct and the Salvation Army solicits contributions for its religious purpose or that yoga is also a religious study.
She’s a nitwit and shouldn’t be on that bench.
First Amendment only bars Congress from making laws respecting the free exercise of religion and speech...doesnt say anything about Judges not making such laws. Granted thats because its already clear judges are not supposed to make laws...which is a policy I wish was followed given how badly its turned out after they decided they could.
There are more and more people who do not belong on benches being appointed, voted in, or whatever.
It dosn’t bode well.
How about some guerilla theater? People dressed as members of a Nativity scene travel on the buses and subway.
DoughtyOne wrote:
There are more and more people who do not belong on benches being appointed, voted in, or whatever.
It doesn’t bode well.
AndyTheBear said:
First Amendment only bars Congress from making laws respecting the free exercise of religion and speech...doesnt say anything about Judges not making such laws. Granted that’s because its already clear judges are not supposed to make laws...which is a policy I wish was followed given how badly its turned out after they decided they could.
The Grinch that stole Christmas.
No Blessings for DC.
I’ve bought off on that argument for a long time.
Are you saying that if I discriminate against an individual who is a member of a minority, I can get away with it because it isn’t the government doing it?
No, free speech is a guaranteed right. Period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.