Posted on 03/10/2015 8:18:34 PM PDT by marshmallow
ST. LOUIS — The US Court of Appeals has ruled that the House of Worship Protection Act, which bans anyone from intentionally disturbing the order or solemnity of a house of worship through profane discourse, rude, or indecent behavior, is a violation of the First Amendment.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the St. Louis-based court ruled against the state law Monday after the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri filed a lawsuit challenging the law in 2012.
The lawsuit was on behalf of various groups, including the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. The groups argued that the First Amendment protects their freedom to protest, pray and distribute literature outside places of worship.
Under the law, which took effect in 2012, anyone who violated the act is guilty of a misdemeanor and faces months of jail time. Third and subsequent charges are felonies.
(Excerpt) Read more at cruxnow.com ...
Disrupting the killing in an abortuary = a violation of civil rights.
How is causing disruption on private property a violation of the first amendment? The first amendment only applies to actions of the government.
Twisting the meanings and context of the language to interpret it the way you want it to. Sounds like a common tactic used by evil to me...
Sounds like its time to go visit some mosques.
So I guess it’s my 1A “right” to stand naked in my neighbor’s yard while they are eating dinner and shout rude noises?
These people on this court are not jurists, saying they are is a true obscenity.
If you are on Church property, you have to toe their line or they can demand you leave. You don't get to "speak" there just because you have a right to criticize the government without worrying about retaliation FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
They have a right to control their own property and they have a right to decide who gets to "speak" and who doesn't.
This should get interesting.
This court has it completely upside down. Disrupting church services inhibit the First Amendment. Time, place and manner restrictions should apply neutrally. Let people demonstrate out on the street.
“Sounds like its time to go visit some mosques”
Now now, that would be racist, besides that would be outside the spirit of the law which clearly only affects christians
Just thinking it would be fun to see just how quick this overturning is overturned.
So I guess the court agrees that it’s ok for me to walk into a courtroom and disrupt it. Right, judges?
As mentioned in related threads, regardless what FDR’s activist justices wanted everybody to believe about Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation,” the real Thomas Jefferson had clarified the following about “government” power to address religious issues. Jefferson had noted, in terms of the 10th Amendment (10A) nonetheless, that the states had made 10A to clarify in general terms that the states had reserved the power to regulate our constitutional privileges and immunities, 1st Amendment (1A)-protected religious expression in this example, regardless that they had made 1A in part to prohibit such powers to Congress altogether.
“3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed [emphasis added]; …” —Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
Note that the states had no constitutional check on their 10A-protected power to address religious issues until the states ratified the 14th Amendment (14A), 14A now limiting such powers.
H O W E V E R …
The 14th Amendment did not take away any state powers. In fact, note that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had reflected on Jefferson’s clarification of state powers to regulate our constitutional protections by officially clarifying, as evidenced by the congressional record, that 14A took away no state’s rights.
“The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights [emphasis added] that belong to the States.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)
“No right [emphasis added] reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)
“Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)
So it remains that a key question is what happened to 10A-protected state power to protect religious expression if the states still have such power as evidenced by both the Jefferson excerpt about state power to address religious issues and Bingham’s clarification of the limits of 14A?
The problem is that FDR’s activist justices blatantly ignored Bingham’s statements, imo, as they relate to 10A-protected state power to regulate religious issues as evidenced by the following excerpt from Cantwell v. Connecticut.
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws [emphasis added]. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940.
In fact, reflecting a struggle between state-power ignoring activist justices and justices who respect state powers, Justice Reed had noted the following relationship between 10A and 14A.
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.
As a side note to this discussion, please consider the following. Although I won’t go into details in this post, probably the undercurrent reason that FDR’s thug justices attacked state power to address religious expression concerns the centuries old cold war between Protestants and Catholics.
Getting back to state powers, again, I wouldn’t be surprised if Missouri state officials don’t have a clue as to how to argue that the Founding States had never intended for our constitutionally enumerated protections to be absolute, the states still having 10A power to make a religious law to reasonably reasonably limit free speech in this case.
So anyone can enter anyone else's space now and disrupt things?
You have the right to freedom of assembly (you rent a hall and gather or do so in someone's home, or do it on the streets).
No one has to tolerate your intrusion and disruption into their house of worship.
That would also be against Sharia Law.
Homofacism in action.
I recall seeing Rush Limbaugh for the first time (on tv around 1988). He was substituting for Pat Sajek for a week on his late night tv show. ACT UP packed the audience and disrupted the taping. The audience was cleared and the show resumed.
This kind of ruling means that they could not be forced out or to shut up.
We had a group of abortion protestors out on the sidewalk in front of our church. We let another church use it on Saturdays, and they were tied to some hosptial that did abortions.
Those folks sure knew their legal grounds. And just waiting for someone to get physical. As a deacon of the regular church I was called on to see if I could get them to move. I couldn’t. I told them I was smphathetic with their message - just not the means.
But, as long as they didn’t step on our property I couldn’t do anything.
Not sure why they need this law. Doesn’t disturbing the peace still apply?
And yet, if I would have stood up in their court and started screaming while they were handing down their decision, I would have been arrested.
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.