>>It almost appears as if you are afraid to answer the question. Why would that be? I mean, people either HAVE 1st Amendment rights, or they don’t, right?
<<
The First Amendment does not address bikers.
It DOES address the right to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.
The issue was NOT traffic or noise, as indicated by the article.
It was the fact that the assemble was religious in nature, and the topic could not be discussed without a Government permit.
Go ahead and defend it all you want.
Relevant part of Murdock V PA, 319 US 105, decided 1943:
But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax-a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce ( McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Co., 309 U.S. 33 , 56-58, 60 S.Ct. 388, 397, 398, 128 A.L.R. 876), although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory. Id., 309 U.S. at page 47, 60 S.Ct. at page 392, 128 A.L.R. 876 and cases cited. A license tax applied to activities guaranteed by the First Amendment would have the same destructive effect. It is true that the First Amendment, like the commerce clause, draws no distinction between license taxes, fixed sum taxes, and other kinds of taxes. But that is no reason why we should shut our eyes to the nature of the tax and its destructive influence. The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down.
Repeat: A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.!!!!
It is not the form of a law, but it’s substance and effect that is important. And this is CLEARLY an attack on religious activity, we know that for a fact because the code even mentions “religious and fraternal” activities.
Hands down unconstitutional.
Not even close.
What's that supposed to mean? Are you implying that "bikers" lack the right to peacefully assemble without government interference simply because they are not specifically addressed in the First Amendment?
I hope not, because that would be just as ridiculous as someone arguing that "Christians" lack the right to religious freedom simply because "Christianity" is not specifically addressed in the First Amendment.
Don't worry, though, by reading between the lines I have obtained the answer to my original question.
You even appear to recognize the hypocrisy of supporting restrictions on the rights of some groups while espousing unfettered freedom for groups with whom you agree. You also appear to be uncomfortable facing that hypocrisy, so you resort to accusing people of making "straw man" arguments and to making lame statements like "The First Amendment does not address bikers".
It's too bad, too, because I support your basic premise regarding the 1st Amendment -- we appear to differ in that I think ALL of those freedoms (not just religious ones) should be protected for everyone, and you seem to care only about the religious rights of Christians.