Anti-Catholic San Fran City Resolution OK: 9th Circuit Court Panel

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ani_Ibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ani_Ibi

Guest
Lifesite News: Anti-Catholic San Fran City Resolution OK: 9th Circuit Court Panel
June 4, 2009 A San Francisco City Board’s resolution condemning the Catholic Church because of its moral teachings…does not violate the Constitution’s prohibition of government hostility toward religion, says a panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. (See the ruling here) …

…The Thomas More Law Center will seek review by the full court and said that, if necessary, the case will be brought to the United States Supreme Court.
The Law Center’s lawsuit claimed that the City’s anti-Catholic resolution violated the First Amendment, which “forbids an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion, religious beliefs, or of religion in general.”
Click to expand...
 
“WHEREAS, It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great City’s existing and established customs and traditions such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need…”

Sounds like the old anti-Catholic arguments… “If a Catholic is elected president, the U.S. would be governed by the pope.” :rolleyes: 😦 :mad: 🤷 (Not sure which face is appropriate… Maybe all four. 😃 )
 
The arrogance of this city is absolutely amazing!! They don’t want to follow what the Catholic Church has taught for centuries, it’s just not very convenient for them.:rolleyes:
 
What else would you expect from this city in this state with Pelosi as the elected representative from that city??? I know this is not federal, but municipal. If the Supreme Court says this is OK, which I doubt, look for it to be done in many more locations.
 
i fear it may be illegal to be Catholic eventually. Of course Catholicism is illogical to people of no faith thinking only from the body. More and more they are in the majority. It is like 2 staunch cannibals and 1 civilized person voting on what to eat for dinner.

It is not enough for those who do not understand Catholicism to simply ignore it; they must attack and destroy it with an undying passion. And therein lies the proof there is an existence of satan and his minions.
 
Perhaps this could be issued instead:

“WHEREAS, It is an insult to all Catholics when a foreign city, like San Francisco, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence established customs and traditions such as the right to to adopt and care for children in need in order to (name removed by moderator)ose their morally (and financially) bankrupt mores upon society”
 
Bigotry is permitted under the law. Nice.

Where are the leftists calling for “tolerance” now?
 
Sapphire_Dragon said:
“WHEREAS, It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great City’s existing and established customs and traditions such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need…”

Sounds like the old anti-Catholic arguments… “If a Catholic is elected president, the U.S. would be governed by the pope.” :rolleyes: 😦 :mad: 🤷 (Not sure which face is appropriate… Maybe all four. 😃 )
Click to expand...
“Customs and traditions”… such as same-sex household adoptions? This should have been struck down for its rank stupidiy alone.
 
tm30 said:
“Customs and traditions”… such as same-sex household adoptions? This should have been struck down for its rank stupidiy alone.
Click to expand...
I know! We all know that that’s been the custom and tradition of this country since the beginning, right? :rolleyes:
40.png
soutane:
The sad part is this city was named for St Francis.Shameful.
Click to expand...
I know… Of all cities, one named after a Catholic saint and with Catholic missionaries among its founders is calling the Catholic Church “foreign.” 🤷
 
I would have considered this unconstitutional a year ago, but in the recent Summum case, the Supreme Court established a government right to speech.

Here’s an excerpt from an article summarizing that decision:
While a government entity is quite limited in its ability to regulate or restrict private speech in traditional public forums, like parks, the government entity “is entitled to say what it wishes,” Justice Alito wrote, citing earlier Supreme Court rulings. If the people do not like what their government officials say or stand for, they can vote them out of office, he wrote.
Click to expand...
Not that government, through its officials, can say whatever it wants whenever it wants, Justice Alito observed. For one thing, government expressions must not violate the First Amendment’s ban on endorsement of a particular religion.
Source
Click to expand...
My hunch is that the above article oversimplifies the matter, and that a government can say “We really like Shintoism,” or “Theosophy is a crock,” so long as they avoid any discriminatory actions reflecting these views. Or at least, a government could say “We find it intolerable when Islam is practiced in a way that results in terrorist attacks,” or more to the point, “We find it intolerable when Catholicism is practiced in a way that interferes with legal adoption by our gay citizens.”

I will have to read the SCOTUS opinion more carefully to see if it backs up my assumptions above, and then the Ninth Circuit opinion to see if that’s the tack they took.
 
Digitonomy said:
I would have considered this unconstitutional a year ago, but in the recent Summum case, the Supreme Court established a government right to speech.

Here’s an excerpt from an article summarizing that decision:My hunch is that the above article oversimplifies the matter, and that a government can say “We really like Shintoism,” or “Theosophy is a crock,” so long as they avoid any discriminatory actions reflecting these views. Or at least, a government could say “We find it intolerable when Islam is practiced in a way that results in terrorist attacks,” or more to the point, “We find it intolerable when Catholicism is practiced in a way that interferes with legal adoption by our gay citizens.”

I will have to read the SCOTUS opinion more carefully to see if it backs up my assumptions above, and then the Ninth Circuit opinion to see if that’s the tack they took.
Click to expand...
The problem is that this “government right to speech” in this case could and will probably be used as justification for official discrimination against the Church.

And keep in mind, usually if the 9th Circuit upholds or overturns a decision, then more often than not that decision is reversed by the Supreme Court.
 
LRThunder said:
The problem is that this “government right to speech” in this case could and will probably be used as justification for official discrimination against the Church.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe. But there hasn’t been any evidence of it.
 
Digitonomy said:
I will have to read the SCOTUS opinion more carefully to see if it backs up my assumptions above, and then the Ninth Circuit opinion to see if that’s the tack they took.
Click to expand...
As it turns out, the text of the Summum decision generally shies away from its broader implications and focuses on when and how a government can regulate the content of its monument park. The closest I could come to this case was a warning in Justice Souter’s concurring opinion,
(“The [Establishment] Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others”). But the government could well argue, as a development of government speech doctrine, that when it expresses its own views, it is free of the Establishment Clause’s stricture against discriminating among religious sects or groups.
Click to expand...
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decison didn’t mention Summum at all. Instead, the basis was the Lemon test:
Government action will pass muster if it “(1) has a secular purpose; (2) has a principal or primary effect that neither advances nor disapproves of religion; and (3) does not foster excessive governmental entanglement with religion.” Vasquez, 487 F.3d at 1255 (citing Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13). Failure to satisfy any of these three inquiries condemns government conduct as unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
The Court goes on to reason that in spite of the belligerent language against the Church, the primary purpose and effect was secular, related to the city’s goal of nondiscrimination in adoption.
40.png
LRThunder:
The problem is that this “government right to speech” in this case could and will probably be used as justification for official discrimination against the Church.
Click to expand...
In a concurring opinion, Judge Berzon expressed a similar discomfort with the decision, and made explicit three conditions particular to this case that limit the wider applicability of this ruling:
— first, that no regulation at all was attached to the resolutions — they were purely speech, albeit governmental speech; second, that the speech was broadcast to the public, as far as appears in the opinions, only by the enactment of the resolution itself, and not in any other, more intrusive and permanent way — for example, through plaques in public places, or advertisements in newspapers or on radio; and third, that the resolutions were not repeated or pervasive, but discrete. If any of these circumstances were different, I would think that the notion that there was an establishment of religion rather than the predominant pursuit of a secular purpose with a predominantly secular effect would have considerably more force, and the result might be otherwise.
Click to expand...
 
LRThunder said:
And keep in mind, usually if the 9th Circuit upholds or overturns a decision, then more often than not that decision is reversed by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Not true. In the past 12 months the Ninth Circuit has issued 868 written decisions. The Supreme Court lets stand the vast majority of 9th Circuit rulings - I think it took up about 16 this year. Actually, we’ve discussed this before.
 
Eucharisted said:
San Fran protests everything. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Not really.

Death of babies? No protest.
Treating people like sex objects? No protest.
Culture of death? No protest.
Extreme leftist viewpoints? No protest.
Homosexualist lifestyle? No protest.
 
BobCatholic said:
Not really.

Death of babies? No protest.
Treating people like sex objects? No protest.
Culture of death? No protest.
Extreme leftist viewpoints? No protest.
Homosexualist lifestyle? No protest.
Click to expand...
Good point.

Maybe we should say, San Francisco protests everything good and holy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top