Court Allows San Fran City Resolution Condemning Catholicism as 'Insulting,' 'Hateful'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pro_Life_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pro_Life_News

Guest
By Kathleen GilbertSAN FRANCISCO, October 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has shakily allowed to stand a resolution by the city government of San Francisco that lambasted the Vatican as “meddl[ing]” and “insult[ing]” for reaffirming its…

Full article…
 
Let the insults and spittle continue. Our Lord suffered them; and He told us to expect the same.

With the proximity of the San Andreas Fault, are the “civic fathers” walking on thin ice?
 
I don’t think that throwing names, insults and accusations around, whether directed towards the Vatican or towards homosexuals, is a helpful or intelligent way for adults to behave.
 
Pro_Life_News said:
By Kathleen GilbertSAN FRANCISCO, October 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has shakily allowed to stand a resolution by the city government of San Francisco that lambasted the Vatican as “meddl[ing]” and “insult[ing]” for reaffirming its…

Full article…
Click to expand...
Meh. Its San Fransisco, home of Nancy Pelosi (that super-d-duper Catholic). Did anyone expect different?
 
kaid100 said:
I don’t think that throwing names, insults and accusations around, whether directed towards the Vatican or towards homosexuals, is a helpful or intelligent way for adults to behave.
Click to expand...
Throwing names around towards the Vatican and the Catholic Church is and has been in the homosexual Agenda from the 1950s when they took o ver the Seminaries. the destruction of the Catholic Church came ablut when the Popes wouldn’t make Catholicism a homosexual religion. ?homosexuals have the upper hand in America, and the President just appointed 150 homosexuals in various positions including 7 as FBI AGENTS. between obama and Clinton ,homosexuals will practically run the U.S Government. homoseuals operate Clubs at 96 Catholic Universities, and over 40 % of our bishops are homosexual. The AMERICAN People must STOP Worshipping homosexuality ,and get back to GOD.
 
Court “Allows”? That’s a mis-characterization. The court dismissed a challenge to the resolution which had already passed. The court *refused to allow *a lawsuit to proceed, that’s what happened. The plaintiffs did not really have standing to sue.

For a less partisan report:

"(CN) - In a fractured 8-3 ruling Friday, the 9th Circuit rejected a lawsuit filed by Catholics over San Francisco’s non-binding resolution denouncing the Vatican’s stance on gay adoptions.
The federal appeals court voted 8-3 to uphold dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two local residents after the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a non-binding resolution urging Catholic charities to allow same-sex adoption…
“In the end … the resolution carries no legal effect and, perhaps more importantly, does not apply to Plaintiffs,” Judge Susan Graber wrote, joined by Judges Pamela Rymer, Michael Daly Hawkins and Margaret McKeown, and Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. "

courthousenews.com/2010/10/25/Rulings_&_Appeals.htm#31346

No wonder the suit was dismissed. You gotta have a horse in the race to sue.
 
Further on the headline, if you want to be technical, the SF resolution did not ‘condemn Catholicism’.
 
From the article -
In an opinion joined by Judges Barry Silverman, Sidney Thomas and Richard Clifton, it was decided that the Supervisors “have the right to speak out in their official capacities on matters of secular concern to their constituents, even if their statements might offend the religious feelings of some of their other constituents,” according to the Courthouse News Service.
Click to expand...
Interesting, I think, that the possibility of offending feelings about religion carries so much legal sway when the anti-religious are the ones in danger of being offended. I’d take these idiotic non-binding resolutions in a heartbeat for the same standard applied to, say, having a valedictorian be able to say a prayer at graduation.
 
George_2007 said:
Interesting, I think, that the possibility of offending feelings about religion carries so much legal sway when the anti-religious are the ones in danger of being offended.
Click to expand...
I’m sure the city could have made a similar resolution about atheists if it wished.
George_2007 said:
I’d take these idiotic non-binding resolutions in a heartbeat for the same standard applied to, say, having a valedictorian be able to say a prayer at graduation.
Click to expand...
City criticism of a religious practice does not seem to be the ‘establishment of religion’ banned by the first amendment. A crowd forced to engage in a religious prayer at a public institution is obviously much different.

I’d take the constitution any day.
 
George_2007 said:
…having a valedictorian be able to say a prayer at graduation.
Click to expand...
Beau_Ouiville said:
A crowd forced to engage in a religious prayer at a public institution is obviously much different.
Click to expand...
Yeah…that is “obviously much different” than a valedictorian saying a prayer at a graduation. 🤷

This is why liberal legal minds always fail in their interpretation of the Constitution.
 
kaid100 said:
I don’t think that throwing names, insults and accusations around, whether directed towards the Vatican or towards homosexuals, is a helpful or intelligent way for adults to behave.
Click to expand...
Nope. But, it is allowed by the Constitution. The city is fully within it’s rights to make a superfluous statement about the Vatican. It just shows their stupidity…not that most of SF’s constituents mind that…
 
Pro_Life_News said:
By Kathleen GilbertSAN FRANCISCO, October 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has shakily allowed to stand a resolution by the city government of San Francisco that lambasted the Vatican as “meddl[ing]” and “insult[ing]” for reaffirming its…

Full article…
Click to expand...
Another reason why I will never step foot within their town or spend 1 cent within that city’s borders.
 
Clearly this is just a case of a group of “Catholicphobes” expressing their hate and fear. They have every right to do so, but it just shows their **Catholicphobia **for all to see. After all, Catholicphobia is the same as Christophobia, a deep hatred and fear of everything to do with Jesus and Christianity. 👍

Sadly, the world has many fear filled Catholicphobes in it…a very sad shame.
 
irishpatrick said:
Sadly, the world has many fear filled Catholicphobes in it…a very sad shame.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe they disagreed with a Vatican position on homosexuals. That’s a long way from ‘Catholicphobia’, or whatever.

Take off that victim’s cloak.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
No wonder the suit was dismissed. You gotta have a horse in the race to sue.
Click to expand...
Actually, a 6 to 5 majority ruled that the plaintiffs had standing.
After raising the question of standing sua sponte, we asked the parties for letter briefs addressing it. The City and County conceded standing, arguing that “the individual plaintiffs have successfully pleaded standing, having alleged that they are members of the community who have had contact with the resolution and have suffered spiritual harm as a result.” Were the result otherwise, the municipality concedes, a resolution declaring Catholicism to be the official religion of the municipality would be effectively unchallengeable. The municipality also concedes that the Catholic League has “associational standing.”
Click to expand...
The majority opinion continues its analysis of standing from pages 17365 to 17374

The reason the dismissal was affirmed was that three of the six judges in the majority opinion on standing voted that plaintiffs did not satisfy the merits, and so those three joined the five who voted against standing to affirm the dismissal 8-3.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Well, maybe they disagreed with a Vatican position on homosexuals. That’s a long way from ‘Catholicphobia’, or whatever.

Take off that victim’s cloak.
Click to expand...
I guess you missed his point. He was using sarcasm to demonstrate the victimhood of those who call Catholics homophobes because of our stance on homosexuality. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top