A battle for religious freedom

[JMWATS 93]

A Michigan town is reportedly a microcosm in the battle for religious freedom.  I’m interested in hearing thoughts about what is reportedly going on there and what it means for religious freedom across the U. S. In the future. 
 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/muslims-vs-democrats-a-story-of-betrayal-hamtramck-gender-ideology-1c775323

[Didba 5,256]

Yeah, the actions by the city council are not constitutional. The prohibition is subject to strict scrutiny and it won’t be able to pass that very high bar.
 

And no, the recent scotus decision regarding the private Christian website refusing to serve LGBTQ does not apply  

See this flow chart:

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Didba

[JMWATS 93]

I don't think this action rises to a constitutional issue.  Many other cities are doing the same apparently. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/06/14/a-michigan-city-just-banned-pride-flags-here-are-the-other-communities-that-have-done-the-same/?sh=b6128d46b77d

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, JMWATS said:

I don't think this action rises to a constitutional issue.  Many other cities are doing the same apparently. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/06/14/a-michigan-city-just-banned-pride-flags-here-are-the-other-communities-that-have-done-the-same/?sh=b6128d46b77d

Trust me. I’m a lawyer.

It’s unconstitutional. Just because “many other cities are doing the same” does not mean it’s constitutional. 

A lot of states were doing segregation for 50+ years. 

To walk you through the chart:

To ensure narrow tailoring, the Court developed the standard of strict scrutiny when reviewing free speech cases. To satisfy strict scrutiny, the government must show that the law meets a compelling government interest and that the regulation is being implemented using the least restrictive means.

These city councils will be unable to show that “religious freedom” or “clashing with religious beliefs” are a compelling government interest. Further, doing so would violate the establishment clause. 

Here’s an official memo from the ACLU explaining first amendment law in a little more detail:

https://www.aclu.org/documents/prohibitions-lgbtq-rainbow-flags-and-other-pride-displays

Edited August 2, 2023 by Didba

[JMWATS 93]

Trust you because you are a lawyer? 🤣

This Michigan issue centers on flag displays by the city on city property not flag displays by private citizens who are on city property.

Edited August 2, 2023 by JMWATS

[Didba 5,256]

4 hours ago, JMWATS said:

Trust you because you are a lawyer? Haha.

This Michigan issue centers on flag displays by the city on city property not flag displays by private citizens who are on city property.

I am aware of that. The way I understood it initially was the city council ordinance would also impact private citizens displaying these flags on city property. If that's not the case, then, of course, that's my bad.

Of course, I cannot find any articles clarifying that, they are just all focused on the religious BS.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Didba

[Didba 5,256]

4 hours ago, JMWATS said:

Trust you because you are a lawyer? 🤣

This Michigan issue centers on flag displays by the city on city property not flag displays by private citizens who are on city property.

Found the resolution; it is pretty ambiguous as to whether private citizens can come onto the city's public property while protesting, celebrating and/or parading with these banned flags, if yes, then no issue at all, if no then all of my earlier comments apply.  The first paragraph seems like they were trying to get there but the ambiguities in the second paragraph, lacking more context, seem to contradict the first.  We will have to see how the city actually enforces it.

Hopefully, the city doesn't enforce it against private citizens on public properties protesting, celebrating and/or parading with these banned flags so it never becomes a constitutional issue.

"WHEREAS, this resolution does not in any way, shape or form infringe upon the fundamental right
of an individual or business in the City of Hamtramck to engage free speech. Nor does this
resolution limit speech by public employees provided that such employees engage in such speech
in a protected time, manner and place.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hamtramck, Wayne County,
Michigan, that the government of the City of Hamtramck does not allow any religious, ethnic,
racial, political, or sexual orientation group flags to be flown on the City’s public properties, and
that only, the American flag, the flag of the State of Michigan, the Hamtramck Flag, the Prisoner
of War flag and the nations’ flags that represent the international character of our City shall be
flown."

[JMWATS 93]

I understand the point you were making with the constitution and free speech cases. Thanks for the follow up. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

The entire concept of "religious freedom" is being distorted.

 

[GoAU 1,600]

On 8/2/2023 at 3:22 PM, Didba said:

Trust me. I’m a lawyer.

Come on - that’s just funny 😁 

I couldn’t read the article w/o subscribing.  
 

But based on your flowchart and your highlighted path, it does appear unconstitutional 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 8/2/2023 at 2:22 PM, Didba said:

Trust me. I’m a lawyer.

Definitely an ambulance chaser. 

[Didba 5,256]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Definitely an ambulance chaser. 

I’m just glad to have a good paying job that isn’t big law or insurance defense but still allows me to pay off my loans. I actually like my coworkers and don’t have to slave away to meet any billables. Plus, I’m partner track as well. It’s a good gig. 

Also, I think you have to work car wrecks to be an ambulance chaser, but what do I know, I just work oil rig and railroad wrongful death cases. Which I guess involve ambulances. Damn maybe I am an ambulance chaser. Crikey. 

Edited August 4, 2023 by Didba

[Didba 5,256]

7 hours ago, GoAU said:

Come on - that’s just funny 😁 

I couldn’t read the article w/o subscribing.  
 

But based on your flowchart and your highlighted path, it does appear unconstitutional 

Yeah I walked into that one full faced straight into the wall 

[GoAU 1,600]

11 hours ago, Didba said:

Yeah I walked into that one full faced straight into the wall 

It’s always good to have a laugh together while discussing this stuff.  Thanks for the sense of humor.  

[AU9377 4,931]

On 8/4/2023 at 2:35 AM, Didba said:

I’m just glad to have a good paying job that isn’t big law or insurance defense but still allows me to pay off my loans. I actually like my coworkers and don’t have to slave away to meet any billables. Plus, I’m partner track as well. It’s a good gig. 

Also, I think you have to work car wrecks to be an ambulance chaser, but what do I know, I just work oil rig and railroad wrongful death cases. Which I guess involve ambulances. Damn maybe I am an ambulance chaser. Crikey. 

Federal Torts Claim Act and Railroads - gives me that warm fuzzy feeling.. that def is NOT ambulance chasing, but you'll still feel like you need a bath after dealing with some of the referrals that come by way of those that are......

[AU9377 4,931]

I'm at a loss for what religious freedom has to do with Pride flags.....

[aubiefifty 16,791]

21 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I'm at a loss for what religious freedom has to do with Pride flags.....

i agree. they cry about losing freedoms but they do not mind stripping you of yours if they disagree with it.

[PUB78 1,358]

On 8/2/2023 at 7:02 PM, Didba said:

I am aware of that. The way I understood it initially was the city council ordinance would also impact private citizens displaying these flags on city property. If that's not the case, then, of course, that's my bad.

Of course, I cannot find any articles clarifying that, they are just all focused on the religious BS.

City’s and county’s have the authority to regulate what goes on public property.

[AU9377 4,931]

25 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

City’s and county’s have the authority to regulate what goes on public property.

They do, yes, but they can't pick and choose, outside of obscenity, which expressions of faith or cause.  In other words, they can choose to not allow any exhibit on public property, but picking and choosing will invite problems constitutionally.

[PUB78 1,358]

On 8/6/2023 at 10:10 AM, AU9377 said:

They do, yes, but they can't pick and choose, outside of obscenity, which expressions of faith or cause.  In other words, they can choose to not allow any exhibit on public property, but picking and choosing will invite problems constitutionally.

I agree. If you limit it to recognized government flags, federal, state and local, then there is no discrimination. However, if you allow the rainbow and BLM flags, but not MAGA ones, you are being discriminatory and selective 

[Didba 5,256]

On 8/6/2023 at 9:40 AM, PUB78 said:

City’s and county’s have the authority to regulate what goes on public property.

To an extent. As soon as they remove/arrest protesters with LGBTQ/MAGA/BLM/Peace flags it becomes a constitutional issue. Viewpoint discrimination must have a compelling government interest and they don’t have one here. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Didba

[homersapien 11,373]

On 8/5/2023 at 11:39 AM, AU9377 said:

I'm at a loss for what religious freedom has to do with Pride flags.....

It's not about religious freedom - just the opposite.  It's about imposing or forcing your religion onto others.  a.k.a. Christofascism

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by homersapien

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 8/4/2023 at 1:35 AM, Didba said:

I’m just glad to have a good paying job that isn’t big law or insurance defense but still allows me to pay off my loans. I actually like my coworkers and don’t have to slave away to meet any billables. Plus, I’m partner track as well. It’s a good gig. 

Also, I think you have to work car wrecks to be an ambulance chaser, but what do I know, I just work oil rig and railroad wrongful death cases. Which I guess involve ambulances. Damn maybe I am an ambulance chaser. Crikey. 

I've contemplated pulling a "Benedict Arnold." The 3-4 hours of sleep per-night average is getting old. 

[JMWATS 93]

On 8/9/2023 at 9:52 AM, homersapien said:

It's not about religious freedom - just the opposite.  It's about imposing or forcing your religion onto others.  a.k.a. Christofascism

 

In the Michigan case it is a Muslim Mayor and City Council.  

Edited August 12, 2023 by JMWATS

[icanthearyou 4,463]

On 8/7/2023 at 1:48 PM, PUB78 said:

I agree. If you limit it to recognized government flags, federal, state and local, then there is no discrimination. However, if you allow the rainbow and BLM flags, but not MAGA ones, you are being discriminatory and selective 

How about the confederate flags and, flags with swastikas?