SCOTUS unanimously rules Boston violated group's rights by refusing to fly Christian flag

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a "Christian flag."

The question before the court was whether flying the flag as part of a government program was considered government speech if the flag belonged to a private organization, in this case, Camp Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not.

"We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court's opinion, stating that as a result the city improperly violated Camp Constitution's free speech rights.

Boston argued that flying the flag was government speech because it was the city’s flag pole – indeed the pole is normally used to fly the flag of Boston when it is not used for this program. During oral arguments, the city’s attorney Douglas Harry Hallward-Driemeier noted that the city’s website says "we" commemorate flags of many countries and "our goal is to foster diversity," which would indicate that it is the city’s decision to fly the flags in order to promote its own message.

Attorney Mathew Staver, representing Shurtleff, argued during oral arguments that the city's policy specifically used the phrase "public forum," which would indicate that the flags would be an expression of the private speech of the group that applied.

In the court’s opinion, Breyer recognized that there was evidence for both sides. He made clear that if this was government speech, Boston would have been within its rights to deny the camp's application to fly the flag.

Oh thank you SCOTUS for doing all you can do to make sure our country doesn’t go straight to Hell! Yay we can waive a flag.

How about that stolen 2020 election you cowards! We are about to shove those receipts down your collective throats. The world is about to see what you let happen. You hear me Roberts? Gorsuch? Kavanaugh? Barrett?

Thanks for your safe little case you can rule on from on-high! Disgusting!

Correct though the ruling may be, your blind eyes are the bigger issue.

On one hand, there's unconstitutional (imo) federal civil rights laws protecting against sex bias in the workplace for example, the loss of unconstitutional federal funding threatened for not teaching politically correct civil right issues at schools (gender politics, CRT, etc.), for example.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.

On the other hand, I don't know of any 14th Amendment-based laws protecting religion-related flags at city hall for example, correction welcome.

"Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws [emphasis added]."
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

In other words, regardless of basic rights enumerated in the Constitution, the very corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress has given us mostly politically correct, constitutionally indefensible federal civil rights laws that mainly help to keep desperate Democrats and RINOs in power imo.

After all, why should lawmakers worry about getting kicked out of office for supporting politically incorrect, 14th Amendment-based civil rights legislation when Congress can let non-elected justices decide these social controversies on a case by case basis? /semi-sarc

Corrections, insights welcome.

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.