A Christian who wanted to fly a flag in the Boston city hall's flagpole is reportedly getting a lot of support, including from unlikely sources, such as various states and the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.
WND reported that Hal Shurtleff through Liberty Counsel has brought the lawsuit he filed against the city to the United States Supreme Court. The report highlighted that Shurtleff was supported by the United States government along with 11 other states and the ACLU, who each filed an amicus brief for him.
As previously reported, Shurtleff leads the Christian organization Camp Constitution. which requested permission from the city of Boston to fly their flag during Constitution Day and Citizenship Day in 2017. Camp Constitution's request was denied, but other groups who had made the same request were granted permission.
Liberty Counsel contested the denial as a violation of Camp Constitution's First Amendment right to free speech and the Establishment Clause, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment right to Equal Protection Clause.
The Boston City Hall reasoned that Camp Constitution's flag, bearing a red cross on it, was a Christian flag and could not be hung on the flagpole. being a public forum. But the city hall previously approved the flying of a Turkish flag bearing the Islamic insignia of star and crescent from the Ottoman Empire. The case was raised to the level of the Supreme Court in October after the court accepted to hear Shurtleff's appeal for writs of certiorari.
As per the amicus brief, the U.S. government is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the decision against Shurtleff since the city's claim of the flagpole as a public forum is incorrect.
"Under this court's precedents and based on the record in this case, the city's flag-raising program is not government speech, but instead a forum for private speech. The court should therefore reverse the decision...In so doing, however, the court should re-affirm that the First Amendment affords the city and other governments ample latitude to craft expressive programs-including programs involving contributions from private parties-without relinquishing their right to control the message or exclude other private speakers," the U.S. amicus brief said.
Meanwhile, the 11 states raised in their amicus brief that the city's actions deceptively present itself as part of government speech but is actually nothing short of religious discrimination. The 11 states echoed the U.S. government in urging the Supreme Court to reverse the decision against Shurtleff.
"This is a case about religious discrimination masquerading as government speech...Here, the religious discrimination hides behind the banner of government speech. And so this case raises different questions than those before it. But the root problem is the same. The court should reverse the decision below," the 11 states said.
"It would be a mistake to resolve the free-speech question presented here without a broader understanding of the root problem-a growing hostility toward religion across the nation," they added.
The ACLU, on the other hand, pointed out that the city denied access to a public forum just because his flag conveyed a religious viewpoint, which in turn is a "viewpoint discrimination," making it unconstitutional.
"The city generally opened its flagpole to flag displays by private speakers. Having done so, it was bound by the same principles that apply in traditional public forums, including the prohibition on viewpoint discrimination. Thus, the fact that the city excluded a speaker with a religious viewpoint does not (as the First Circuit reasoned) show that the city did not open a public forum at all. Instead, it shows the city denied access to a public forum on the basis of viewpoint, which is constitutionally verboten," the ACLU stressed.
