Skip to comments.ACLU files suit backing Christian protester
Posted on 10/27/2006 4:35:00 PM PDT by Ellesu
NATCHITOCHES, La. (AP) The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana filed a lawsuit Friday on behalf of a man who was chased away from the front of a Wal-Mart store when he tried to protest what he believes is the company's stand on gays.
A Natchitoches police officer told Edwin Crayton to leave on or about Oct. 4 after he stood in front of Wal-Mart with a protest sign that read, "Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Lifestyles And Marriage. Don't Shop There," according to a news release from the ACLU.
Crayton was told he could not return until he obtained permits from the police and the mayor, said Joe Cook, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana.
"Government violates the principles in the First Amendment when it puts an over-broad permit scheme in place to restrain free speech in a public place," Cook said. "The sweep of the ordinance is so wide that it could encompass a chance meeting on the street corner by two strangers."
Last year, Wal-Mart disclosed that it was expanding the definition of "immediate family" in its ethics policy to include an employee's same-sex partner. Efforts to increase diversity in the company work force include new groups of minority, female and gay employees that have started meeting at Wal-Mart headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., to advise the company on marketing and internal promotion.
"The right to be heard on matters of religious and political significance is at the core of our constitutional system," said Katie Schwartzmann, staff attorney for the ACLU of Louisiana.
On the net: http://www.laaclu.org/CraytonComplaint_102606.pdf
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
WalMart has every right to remove him from the property, with the exception of that shopping-mall case in California a few years back, I don't know of any states that will allow someone to protest on commercial property if the owners of that property do not want them there.
<<< WalMart has every right to remove him from the property, with the exception of that shopping-mall case in California a few years back, I don't know of any states that will allow someone to protest on commercial property if the owners of that property do not want them there. >>>
the Pruneyard Shopping Center case went to the US Supreme Court ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center )
Once a decade the ACLU files a brief in support of someone other than an America-hating pedophile. Their real aim is to use the brief as a wedge towards achieving some indirect and nefarious thing they actually want.
Transparent, predictable scum.
They can never make themselves useful. I don't care whose "civil liberties" they're supposedly protecting. To see them shut down would throw me into a full body orgasm.
Any "Christian" who seeks aid from the ACLU is a dupe.
Man, this must have a tough one for the ACLU..."Who do we hate more, Christians or WalMart?"
I agree. That was my first thought. He has a right to protest but not on their property. He needs to stay on public property. On the sidewalk adjacent to the parking lot entrance should be fine.
Two-fer case for the ACLU:
1. Parade Christians as paragons of "hate"
2. Paint WalMart as The Evil One that not only puts Mom-and-Pops out of
business, but also censors "the little guy".
Gawd, I hate 99.999% of what the ACLU does.
The ACLU is collapsing, and they KNOW it is because Christians in particular are targeting them and they are being exposed. This is an attempt to divide. That's all it is. It does NOTHING to advance religious freedom AT ALL, it is narrowly tailored to address Freedom of SPEECH, and the religious issue was just the type of speech. They mention it in passing only.
Also, the complaint says that he was standing on the sidewalk, not on Wal-Mart property.
Finally, the ACLU is disintegrating. They are having a hard time getting dues paying members, and an even harder time recruiting lawyers. Also, with the ADF (Alliance Defense Fund), the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice), the PJI (Pacific Justice Institute), and the AFJI (American Family Justice Institute) going after everything the ACLU does and stands for, as well as the very real prospect of Congress SHUTTING DOWN their funding by eliminating the 42 USC 1988 award of attorney's fees for First Amendment cases, the ACLU is on the ropes...
They have a huge endowment, that will be sucked up quicker than a vacuum cleaner if their funding sources go away. And more and more people are challenging them and the ACLU is losing more and more cases.
This is nothing but a desperate act of attempted self-preservation because the ACLU IS GOING DOWN!!!!
The ACLU will add this to their" we defend Christians" list.
Just like the phony on Oprah today, said the ACLU helps everyone.
****** MARK MY WORDS, AND REMEMBER YOU HEARD IT HERE *****
THEY ARE TRYING TO GIVE THE ACLU LOVING DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS SOME AMMUNITION TO USE TO FIGHT AGAINST THE CHANGES TO 42 USC 1988. THE LAW THAT ALLOWS THEM TO BE AWARDED ATTORNEY'S FEES!
THEY ARE WORKING OVERTIME TO GIVE PROPAGANDA TALKING POINTS TO THE DEMOCRAT MEDIA ABOUT HOW GREAT THE ACLU IS FOR DEFENDING CHRISTIANS!
THIS IS A SCAM...
EVEN SATAN, SPEAKING THROUGH THE APOSTLE PETER TRIED TO CONVINCE HIM *NOT* TO GO TO THE CROSS. TO WHICH JESUS REBUKED PETER AND SAID TO HIM "GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN...!!!"
My guess is that they think that this is a good opportunity to attack Wal-Mart, they will continue to attack Christianity on every other front.
Agree, every now and then they have to take on one of those Christian thingies to help keep the funds coming in. Or, at the very least, they can use these lawsuits to prove that they take on other than liberal causes in their endless litigations. Either reason amounts to the same thing
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.