Supreme Court: Boston can't deny Christian flag if it flies other flags on City Hall flagpole

[Jose Garcia]

Source: USA Today

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Boston may not deny a Christian group the ability to raise a flag at City Hall alongside secular organizations that are encouraged to do so to celebrate the city's diversity.

The unanimous decision was the latest in a series of rulings from the high court in recent years that have favored the protection of religious groups asserting a violation of their rights, only in this case the group had support that transcended traditional ideological and partisan lines. The Biden administration, for instance, sided with the group and against Boston.

"We conclude that Boston’s flag-raising program does not express government speech," Associate Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court. "As a result, the city’s refusal to let (the group) fly their flag based on its religious viewpoint violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment."

A mix of conservative and liberal justices joined the court's opinion, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. There were no dissents.

Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/05/02/supreme-court-boston-cant-deny-flying-christian-flag-flagpole/6916444001/

[jimfields33]

5. I'm all for different groups getting to raise a flag

Progress in Boston is so beautiful.

[malthaussen]

2. Seems reasonable. Now the Church of Satan needs to raise its flag.

They have just as much right as anyone else to fly it.

-- Mal

[Ray Bruns]

9. Let's see what happens when they fly this flag.

?1609957172194

[CrispyQ]

12. LOL. It's perfect! The goat, the pentagram, & the rainbow.

I see right-wing heads exploding.


A primer on the difference between The Satanic Temple & The Church of Satan:

[niyad]

18. Thank you!

[reACTIONary]

47. Very informative! nt

[LiberatedUSA]

13. That is awesome! N/t

[Demovictory9]

64. heads will explode

[TheBlackAdder]

30. When this shit was tried in my town, the town limited it to the largest 3 religions, blocking such.

[Ray Bruns]

43. Then someone needs to bring a fat lawsuit against their asses.

[reACTIONary]

48. +10 nt

[TomSlick]

52. Concur.

Once a government opens that door, it must allow all through.

[Rebl2]

62. Absolutely

[homegirl]

50. Along with..

Star of David
Muslim Crescent

and any other religious group that can afford a flag!!!

[Rural_Progressive]

70. I see a Flying Spaghetti Monster flag

in Boston's future

[zanana1]

75. That's what I was thinking, too.

We should have a contest to decorate the flag. Let's see; spaghetti, colander, spaghetti, colander...

[Jose Garcia]

58. The city will just end the program

[shrike3]

82. I agree, and I'm Christian.

I believe one out of four Americans is unchurched at the moment. Those who are churched follow a variety of religions, and if you respect, you have to respect them all.

[Archae]

3. Even money says...

If a group wanted to fly a Muslim flag, those same "christians" would throw a fit.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

6. That was one of the arguments Boston used with the court.

I suppose if Al Qaeda supplies a flag, City Hall will have to fly it.

Maybe they could restrict the flagpoles to just fly the US flag and Massechusetts flag

[mountain grammy]

24. Exactly..

enough with the flags already..

[RobinA]

33. Agree Totally

US flag, state flag, maybe city flag if there is one. Flags are speech in my book. No special interest flag on public property. None.

[smirkymonkey]

56. How much do you want to bet that the MAGAts are going to push for getting a "Trump" flag up there

as well. I can see it now. This is getting ridiculous. It should be country, state, city and that's it.

[jmowreader]

71. How many MAGAts could Boston possibly have?

[smirkymonkey]

77. They come down from NH and the western part of the state.

There aren't a lot of them, but they have a presence that they like to make known. Nothing makes them happier than to come into Boston or Cambridge to "own the Libs".

[Mariana]

90. They are definitely in the minority, but they do exist there. nt.

[intheflow]

61. QAnon and the Oath Keepers have flags

that Boston will be expected to fly now.

[rso]

4. Scotus

Sounds reasonable, especially since all the Justices agreed.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

7. Well, time for the Satanic Temple to insist their flag goes up as well!!!

I suppose if there were no dissents, this is probably the correct decision given the law, even if I kinda hate it myself

[bucolic_frolic]

10. Hate groups will claim religion

I don't see religion as diversity. I see it as a tolerance issue.

[msfiddlestix]

91. I've always regarded the term "tolerance" in a negative light.

I never understood why progressives began to embrace that term back in the 90's to be associated with celebrating diversity.

the term "tolerance" was always associated with enabling bad or abusive behavior.

"She tolerated her husband's assaults because she was trapped in that marriage"

The school tolerates bullies.

etc etc

[dweller]

11. Ramen

✌🏻

[niyad]

21. Very nice! Cappelini and cab at 8.

[Blues Heron]

28. Pastafari!

Good Mac to you this fine and noodley day!

[zanana1]

76. Perfect!!

I'll have to get one for my front yard, too.

[Scalded Nun]

14. Rewrite or everyone that can pull a flag out of their ass needs to get in line.

How about McDonald's? That have an 'M' which could double as a Massachusetts flag.

[JudyM]

15. At long last.

The court cases are going to start any time now…. I look forward to:

[niyad]

20. Rahhhhhhhmen!

[JudyM]

67. .

Noodly appendages uber alles.

[yaesu]

16. So that separation of church & state thingy is pretty much a myth. nt

[FBaggins]

49. As you appear to understand it... yes. nt

[RaDaR63]

55. lol

Good answer.

[melm00se]

57. Only as some people interpret it

The question before the Court was:

whether the flags Boston allows others to fly express government speech... and consistent with the Free Speech Clause?

The Court sided with Shurtleff as:

(The Court) conclude(d) that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech. That means, in turn, that Boston’s refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution raise their flag based on its religious viewpoint “abridg[ed]” their “freedom of speech.”

If the Court had decided that Boston made the raising and flying of private groups' flags a form of government speech then the decision would have gone the other way and properly so.

[Ms. Toad]

79. Nope.

Once a government opens its property up to public speech (flying other non-governmental flags) it may not discriminate as to the type of speech (religious v. not). (Its choice is essentially to allow everyone to use the flag pole, or let no one.)

This is well-settled law.

[Warpy]

17. Cue ISIS flag in 3-2-1

If I know Bostonisns, someone will bodge one up pretty quickly.

[niyad]

19. As a matter of curiosity, what, exactly, is a christian flag? Which denomination?

[ArizonaLib]

22. White

What makes them think the United States flag ever stood for diversity?

[niyad]

25. Apparently their history books are a bit different from others.

[jmowreader]

78. It's for Protestants, Catholics don't use it

Put in your mind a picture of a US flag. Now…imagine that the part with the stripes is a solid white field, and the part with the stars has a red Christian cross instead of the stars.

[Fla Dem]

23. Easy solution. Stop flying ANY flag with religious significance, Shouldn't be doing it anyway.

Separation of church and state and you know.

But hey absolutely fly flags for the Bruins, Red Sox, Pats and Celtics when they win championships. They're non religious and represent the state.

[maxsolomon]

60. doesn't sound like they were flying any religious flags.

...

secular organizations that are encouraged to do so to celebrate the city's diversity

poor poor Christians, so persecuted.

[Ms. Toad]

80. The solution is to prohibit the public from using the flag pole.

Once you open the flag pole up as a quasi-public forum, you are not allowed to pick and choose who uses it. If the local bridge club can use it to fly their flag, so can a church.

[brooklynite]

26. Correct decision...

Setting aside the City, State and National flags, either everyone gets to play or nobody does.

[bluestarone]

27. Timing on this could be really important!

DON'T wait. ask NOW to fly the Satan flag! NOW NOW NOW!

[PoliticAverse]

29. This is entirely consistant with past Supreme Court decisions on similar cases. n/t

[bluestarone]

31. I'm sure you're 100% correct. NOW

What would the SC's answer be to the people that request a Satan flag? Would they also allow that? Could be very interesting.

[PoliticAverse]

35. Basically what has happened is when someone shows up with some Satan themed....

promotion the municipalities either allow it or give up the whole idea of allowing the thing they were allowing.

For example, see:
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2014/12/22/satanic-temple-display-comes-florida-capitol/20764841/

[bluestarone]

39. Interesting TY!

Guess i'll be watching for something like this here.

[PoliticAverse]

83. And here we go...

Satanic Temple asks Boston to fly flag after court ruling
https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-religion-boston-massachusetts-37ddcf21ee814cf3affd0f1e36d59f4b

[bluestarone]

85. TY i saw this too.

I will continue watching this!

[PoliticAverse]

86. Followup: Satanic Temple asks Boston to fly flag after court ruling

https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-religion-boston-massachusetts-37ddcf21ee814cf3affd0f1e36d59f4b

[Novara]

32. No dissents? WTF is wrong with them?

Separation of church and state, hello????

Fine, then fly the ISIS flag, fly the FSM flag, fly the Satanic Temple flag. Fly sports teams' flags. Put them all up in a mockery of the SCOTUS.

ALL OR NONE.

Xtian flags do not belong on government property; it is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. You want to promote diversity? Then allow flags along the streets and thoroughfares rather than at City Fucking Hall. That smacks of city government approval and endorsement. Yes, city streets are also government property but it looks a lot less like city hall is endorsing religion, which is is forbidden to do.

As much as the xtians will cry about this: this country is not a christian country. I, for one, am sick and tired of it shoved down everyone's throats.

Unanimous? What the everloving fuck?

[PoliticAverse]

36. I think you are confused. It was a decision in favor of ALL OR NONE. n/t

[Novara]

42. I read it too fast.

However, I still see it as a violation of the Establishment Clause to allow ANY religion to be represented on government property. Not all or none, but ANY religion.

Now let's see if they'll allow an ISIS flag. Or the Satanic Temple flag. Somebody's gotta push it, man.

[Polybius]

68. ISIS isn't the same, as it's not a religion

It's a group, much like the KKK.

[GregariousGroundhog]

37. That's exactly what the Supreme Court ruled; all or none

The question before them was whether the city's flag pole was government speech or whether it was a public forum. Given that Boston allows secular organizations to fly their flags on city flag poles, they ruled that Boston was operating their flag poles as a public forum. When a government entity operates a public forum, they are greatly restricted in what they can prohibit.

If Boston is worried about flying a flag they disagree with, they have an option - to not let any organization fly their flags on city flag poles.

[Jose Garcia]

38. No one dissented from noted conservative Stephan Breyer's written opinion of this case

[sarisataka]

41. ALL OR NONE.

Is what SCOTUS ruled

[RobinA]

34. How Is Flying

a flag not speech? That's WHY you fly a flag. It's as much speech as spending money, probably more so.

[onenote]

59. No one claimed it wasn't speech.

The issue was whether it was "government" speech. The Court, unanimously, concluded that a flag sponsored by a religious group featuring a religious symbol displayed along side all sorts of other flags (including flags of other nations and even private, non-religious groups that featured the same symbol) did not represent the government speaking and that singling out the religious group represented unconstitutional hostility, not the constitutional mandated neutrality, towards religion.

[RobinA]

63. If The Government

is flying the flag, it's government speech. If I fly a Karl Marx flag, it's my speech and the government can't tell me to take it down. If the government is flying the flag it's government speech. There's no difference between flying a Christian (or any religion) flag and having the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall. I oppose both, this Supreme Court doesn't agree.

[sarisataka]

40. Unanimous decision,

Supported by the Biden administration. Appears the Court is entirely correct.

The city had no policy as to what was unacceptable, a request was submitted and a city official gave approval. There had been over 280 previous requests and never was one denied previously.

Above someone made a comment about flying a McDonald's flag but flags of private businesses have been approved. The Court considered that this did not amount to the city of Boston endorsing these businesses.

Also there were flags that had connections to religion flown previously. The flag of Turkey was displayed in spite of its strong connection to Islam. The representative of the city stated that was because it was the flag of a sovereign nation, yet when asked if they would approve the flag of Vatican City, also a sovereign nation, he said it would be declined because it was used by the Catholic Church.

Given the arbitrary denial with no written policy to support it, it is more difficult to see how the case made it past the Appellate Court.

[Novara]

44. Sounds like a minefield of subjective decisions here.

" The flag of Turkey was displayed in spite of its strong connection to Islam. The representative of the city stated that was because it was the flag of a sovereign nation, yet when asked if they would approve the flag of Vatican City, also a sovereign nation, he said it would be declined because it was used by the Catholic Church."

The SCOTUS shouldn't have taken the case in the first place. The correct decision had already been made.

[sarisataka]

46. It was completely subjective which is why the Appellate Court

Was completely wrong.

At the moment most are wanting to pillory SCOTUS because they ruling was about a Christian flag. However, since the approval process was entirely subjective, the next person to make approvals could have been anti-LGTBQ and started denying all requests for such flags. At that point the same ones condemning SCOTUS would be demanding a ruling that subjective denials are unconstitutional.

What Boston needs to do is what one justice suggests, have a written policy of what is or is not acceptable to be flown. Until then, any/all religious and/or secular flags should be allowed.

I think on April 9th they should fly two flags. The Confederate battle flag, right below a plain white flag.

[Novara]

51. Right, the subjectivity is an issue, BUT

They are still allowing a religious representation on government property, which is a violation of the Establishment Clause. It implies endorsement of religion by government, which is exactly WHY there is such a thing as the Establishment Clause.

Any other cause can be argued (LGBT issues, women's empowerment, whatever), but we have a specific Constitutional prohibition regarding government endorsement of religion. That's why this decision is wrong.

To be consistent with SCOTUS' ruling AND the Establishment Clause, they'd have to fly flags representing all religions, not just this one. And I'd still argue that it's government endorsing religion. I mean, what about atheists?

[sarisataka]

54. If atheists have a flag, fly it

Same for Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Satanism, Hinduism, Scientology, Mami Wata or Jediism....

Now if the city has a policy that says "flags unacceptable to be flown include hate groups, terrorist organizations, flags with more than 50% brown in them... or flags specific to any religious group or organization" I believe that would be acceptable. Also that would allow for national flags that have religious symbols, e g Vatican City, Israel, Turkey, Iran, to be flown as they are not specific.

[RobinA]

65. Well, The LGTBQ Flag

isn't religious so that's one difference. No matter, though. As policy I would be in favor of the government flying no interest group flags whatsoever. In fact, I would prefer it. I'm a card carrying ACLU member and I do not think an ACLU flag should be flown by government. Government should only be flying government flags, which includes flags of other nations. Yes, Vatican City if they are a sovereign nation.

But Constitution-wise, in my book government should not be flying religious flags, and that includes a flag of atheism if there were such a thing. Religious flag flying by government is an overt display of religion. By government.

[SouthernDem4ever]

45. "We conclude that Boston's flag-raising program does not express government speech,"

So the flags aren't raised, cared for or on government property? If they are, WTF are they talking about?

[reACTIONary]

53. If the government has a stage set up in a park...

... and it is government property, and they care for it, and they allow groups to stage concerts and plays, they have created a public forum and can't deny use based on content. Those plays, concerts, etc. are not government speech.

Same for a flag poll if they allow groups to fly their flags.

[onenote]

73. +1

And that is why this was a unanimous decision.

[Ms. Toad]

81. Exactly. n/t

[J_William_Ryan]

66. The Supreme Court is wrong.

It does express government speech in that religion is being endorsed and promoted by government, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

[onenote]

72. Do you disagree with the concept of a public forum?

[Polybius]

69. Amazing decision

I can never argue with a unanimous ruling by the SC.

[SKKY]

74. I don't have a problem with them raising a Christian flag...

...as long as they also allow the rainbow flag, or whatever other flags, to be raised as well.

[Mysterian]

87. This is basic First Amendment 101 stuff

Boston must have an imbecile for legal counsel.

[Jose Garcia]

89. Or imbeciles for City Councilmen and Mayor

Sometimes staff have to do what their bosses want rather than what is smart.

[catsudon]

88. i love 9-0 decisions

no text