In an amazing, unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 on May 2 that the City of Boston violated the free speech rights of a Christian group by refusing to fly a flag bearing the image of a cross at City Hall, even though it had allowed hundreds of other groups to fly various flags, including the flags of Communist China, Communist Cuba, and the rainbow flags of LGBTQ groups, as part of a program that let private organizations use the flagpole while holding events in the plaza below. In 2017, Harold “Hal Shurtleff, the founder-director of Camp Constitution, a Christian camp and retreat center, filed suit after being denied the opportunity to fly the Christian flag. It was blatant discrimination against Christians. The SCOTUS decision, written by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, came out the day before the infamous leak of the SCOTUS draft of the Dobbs/Roe decision and thus, was completely eclipsed by the furor that followed. Thanks to the heroic persistence of Hal Shurtleff – and Liberty Council, which represented him – the SCOTUS ruling in Shurtleff v. Boston will help curtail the anti-Christian bias that has infected many of our government policies and court rulings for much of the past century.
Amazing is right. For this court to agree 9-0 on ANYTHING is mind blowing in the extreme.
you sue a town, county or state and they take a loan out to pay it off, then the tax payers pay it back with interest. when are individuals creating these policies and enforcing them going to be held personally liable ?
Thankyou.What a reminder to fight EVERY battle. Thats how they disempowered us 1 flagpole at a time. Now we take it back 1 flag pole at a time.
Amazing is right. For this court to agree 9-0 on ANYTHING is mind blowing in the extreme.
And now they can sue the shit out of the city. Use the money to fund more Christian Camps 🤩
I am amazed by the unanimous ruling, and feel that there is some hope for the SC after all!
Perhaps the puppet strings have been cut.
Wouldn’t that be great! Maybe they are being protected from blackmail, with the justices promising to “retire” early.
We were wondering a while back, weren't we?
you sue a town, county or state and they take a loan out to pay it off, then the tax payers pay it back with interest. when are individuals creating these policies and enforcing them going to be held personally liable ?
Yep; people don't get it. A public servant(s) must be sued in their personal capacities or go after their bonds and get rightfully rich.
Great win! The amendments are listed in order of importance.
Thr ONLY reason why the Dem members of SC(r)OTUS voted in favor is to use this as a double edged sword against [their] enemies.