General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMayor orders man removed after he didn't stand for Pledge of Allegiance
Winter Garden Mayor John Rees asked police to remove a man from a City Commission meeting Thursday night because he refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
"I just said, 'Either stand or go in the hallway.' He wouldn't," said Rees, 64, who was elected to a third, three-year term in March. "It wasn't premeditated. I just reacted. It hit me. I said it. I gave him an option. ... Life will go on."
Rees said he considered the man's refusal to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance to be disrespectful to American military troops who are serving overseas and others who have given their lives in defense of freedom.
The man was identified by City Manager Mike Bollhoefer as Joseph Richardson, 51, who has repeatedly asked the city to change its invocation policy.
http://touch.orlandosentinel.com/#section/1229/article/p2p-81215619/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
chervilant
(8,267 posts)to which a scoundrel clings.
valerief
(53,235 posts)chervilant
(8,267 posts)As an atheist, I find that ploy most offensive.
valerief
(53,235 posts)
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)to do bidding for whomever, just tell them you talked to god and he said it was OK ... and pull out some Jesus stuff for reinforcements. Some have found burning crosses quite helpful as stage props.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)
NOVA_Dem
(620 posts)Do not put there hand over their hearts nor recite the pledge.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)for someone else, someone who can't speak for themselves.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)tell people to blindly follow his orders, and the sitting man thought they died to give him the freedom to sit or stand as he chose.
Who's right, who's right? What a dilemma.
Richardson obviously knew it was just a matter of time before the "my way or the highway" mayor couldn't control his tyrannical urges any longer. The mayor is about to learn, if he hasn't already, that he inserted himself into a game he had no way of winning. The mayor just proved to the citizens of Winter Garden that he doesn't make very good decisions and shouldn't hold the office of mayor. Well maybe other than being an idiot he's good with the money?
chervilant
(8,267 posts)that many of our younglings must join the military in order to have an income, and a chance to pursue a college education. That should not be the 'go to' option for our children.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)
unblock
(56,186 posts)AUTHOR: Samuel Johnson (1709–84)
QUOTATION: Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
ATTRIBUTION: SAMUEL JOHNSON.—James Boswell, Life of Johnson, entry for Friday, April 7, 1775, p. 615 (1970).
“In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer, I beg to submit that it is the first.”—Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary, at entry for patriotism, The Collected Writings of Ambrose Bierce, p. 323 (1946, reprinted 1973).
H. L. Mencken added this to Johnson’s dictum: “But there is something even worse: it is the first, last, and middle range of fools.”—The World, New York City, November 7, 1926, p. 3E.
ProfessorGAC
(76,622 posts)Johnson said first, but maybe it's true at either end.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)…because they have a title recognition, does not give them permission to be willfully ignorant. I've had my own personal story, which I won't get into. Let's just say that some of them are an embarrassment to their "community".
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)What part of the PoA overtly honors the military? None of it.
Investigative deconstruction would likely reveal a rather more complex motivation system at work. One which likely includes resentment of failure to comply to the honorable mayor's personal and group values.
demwing
(16,916 posts)It's one of the most embarrassing states. Constantly in the news, and always for the wrong reasons.
valerief
(53,235 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)if it were progressive.
Right now it's due to my job, and the free healthcare benefits tied to that position.
CaptainTruth
(8,192 posts)... with a boat dock in my back yard (no way I could have done that back in CA, I'm not even close to rich) ... & go to the beach when it's 80 in Dec/Jan (I love the ocean) ... never been stuck in a traffic jam here ...
Yes there are some crappy things, like Rick Scott, but I like it. 
demwing
(16,916 posts)1.5 hours each way through some of the best beaches in America. It's really a great way to start and end a day...You're right, it's not the state, it's the state politics that make me bruise my forehead.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)I must not be very intelligent. I lived in Florida in the 70's for 3 years and again from 2000 to 2003. I still dislike the state, but have been there to visit. Perhaps my mother dropped me on my head too often when I was a mere infant. A state with a convicted criminal as governor...with little protection for citizens...with the police, and anyone else, free to murder...shopping malls filled with people perhaps with guns...etc.
demwing
(16,916 posts)I love the beaches, the thunderstorms, the sunrises and sunsets, the European tourists (France loves Clearwater, for some reason), and the wildlife. The other week, I saw a flock of wild parrots sitting on a telephone wire!
I'm not at all tolerant of the racism or the politics. While I'm bitching, I can't stand fire ants or mosquitos, I think pressed Cuban sandwiches are boring, and If I never have to eat another Grouper sandwich, it will still be too soon.
Kath1
(4,309 posts)He needs to grow up.
Really, pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)it is also pledging allegiance to the nation.
GOD, I can't believe I just wrote that, but I did.
thesquanderer
(12,998 posts)The whole concept is ridiculous. The government is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)I'm so old I learned the pledge before they added the god stuff in it.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Kath1
(4,309 posts)Point well taken.
I can tell your not really into pledging, either! Cool.
Peace, pangaia.
I can't belive you wrote that, but you did! LOL! 
pangaia
(24,324 posts)in the face of so much lying and distortion from ...the other folks.
Otherwise we give them assumed ammo to call us on...rather,, on which to call us.
Kath1
(4,309 posts)They're bad enough as it is!
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)how petty tyrants such as this rise beyond bullying Home Owners Associations.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)will soon be paying a modest price for Mayor Rees' non-premeditated reaction and the terms of the settlement agreement should include the option paying a huge sum and Rees' life going on as a private citizen or a chance to the invocation policy and Rees' life going on as a private citizen.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)As for the Mayor's continuing in office, though, it would be unusual for the settlement of a case like this to include a provision ousting him.
I wouldn't be surprised if, despite the hit to the taxpayers, the incident enhanced his prospects for re-election. He'll probably gain votes by positioning himself as the champion of traditional American values (which, in his campaign, will not include the First Amendment) and support for the troops.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Oh no ... the Constitution will be front and center in his campaign. You just have to understand ... The guy that refused to stand was infringing in Mayor Rees' 1st Amendment rights?
TNNurse
(7,537 posts)That Mayor that this is not Germany under the Nazis?
Kath1
(4,309 posts)I was at an outdoor festival once during the G.W. Bush/Iraq era, sitting in my lawn chair facing the stage, when out of nowhere the national anthem came blasting over the PA. All these people stood up but my friends and I remained seated and continued our conversation. This really nasty old guy came over and snarled at me, "I hope you're proud of yourself!" I just smiled and flashed him the peace sign. He looked like his head was going to explode. We still laugh about that. Some of these people have wild emotion over these symbols and go nuts if you're not with their program.
littlemissmartypants
(33,333 posts)Here we have a few of the spokes of the wheel in operation.
valerief
(53,235 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)The 'restore prayer in school' and this stuff is a Reagan era aberration. I went to a SBC at the time and they didn't make a peep about it back then.
Believed in separation of church and state and the First Amendment.
This country has been dragged so far backward, I don't know it anymore. Every single thing has been politicized by the RWNJs.
If this guy is so worried about the troops, he can serve. Does he really think that is what soldiers go to war for? Did he think soldiers in WW2 cared more about a park being open than the nation they fought to save from the Axis powers?
Wonder if he wants the draft reinstated, too. He needs to put his ass on the line instead of telling people what to do or say.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)then sue the hell of the mayor, the city and the cops that removed him.
There is no legal requirement to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), the Supreme Court held that it was a violation of the First Amendment to compel schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Richardson was therefore exercising a right guaranteed under the Constitution.
A public official who, acting under color of law (i.e., with the authority of office, as in this case), deprives someone else of his civil rights, as in this case, can be required to pay money damages to the victim. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It seems to me that Mr. Richardson has a good cause of action against Mayor Rees.
The action under section 1983 against the city is tougher. A plaintiff has to show that the act complained of was pursuant to a policy of the city, or that a pattern or practice existed. The city is not liable for a one-time aberration, even by an employee. (This won't matter if, as is likely, the city will indemnify the Mayor. The taxpayers will end up on the hook either way.)
I don’t know what the law is concerning the police in such a situation. A defense of "I was only following orders" has a bad historical odor. On the other hand, it may not be reasonable to expect the police to make on-the-spot determinations of First Amendment law and to defy the Mayor if their interpretations differ from his. I wouldn’t be surprised to find the precedents going either way on that issue.
Hestia
(3,818 posts)CaptainTruth
(8,192 posts)He said not standing was disrespectful to the troops who have given their lives defending freedom ... but that includes the freedom to NOT be forced by the government to take a particular pledge.
It's not like America is the kind of place where people are dragged from the room for refusing to swear allegiance to Allah. Oh wait ... is Winter Garden in America?
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Oh wait..... darn..... I just quoted the title of a book by a journalist.
better not mention his name.
The word Liberty doesn't mean what we thought it means anymore and neither does justice.
rdking647
(5,113 posts)it wasnt a valid meeting
blackspade
(10,056 posts)
bullwinkle428
(20,662 posts)
randome
(34,845 posts)This kind of shit can lead to other displays of disrespect. Before you know it, someone will be calling the President a liar during his State-Of-The-Union address!
Goddamned liberals.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
ProfessorGAC
(76,622 posts)Good thing neither have happened just yet.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)I will be glad when all these RW fascist control freaks go to their big bundyland in the sky. I damn sick and tired of POS like this mayor. I was watching WWII in color last night on one of those channels. I watched how the fascist in Italy and Germany slowly came to power using the carrot and stick. Watch out if our next POTUS ends up a RW POS and he/she starts huge infrastructure 'works' projects to stem the unemployment.
3rdwaydem
(277 posts)I really don't see a problem with this.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)for not seeing a problem
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)Pledges should always be taken freely and without reservation. If a person chooses not to do so, we should respect that. This falls under the freedom of faith provisions - you have the right to your freedom of conscience.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Well, your name says it all. Don't make waves, right?
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 31, 2014, 05:45 PM - Edit history (1)
Freedom of speech also includes the right against forced speech. Speech includes expressive conduct. The individual was clearly continuing expression of his prior opposition to the way meetings started. (who has repeatedly asked the city to change its invocation policy). The Mayor clearly saw this as expressive speech, because he said he saw the act as "disrespectful to American military troops who are serving overseas and others who have given their lives in defense of freedom." Conduct which is not expressive cannot express disrespect.
So if you don't see a problem with it, then you may not have been paying attention when they covered the first amendment in civics.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)or a 4th way dem for that matter.
lpbk2713
(43,271 posts)And obviously the mayor did this to make BecKKK proud of him.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)packman
(16,296 posts)my school days back in Pennsylvania when we had the Pledge and then had a passage from the Bible read before class began. This went on from elementary school, thru Jr. high and finally stopped (the Bible reading part) in high school.
1Greensix
(111 posts)How can a person be elected in the United States when that person doesn't understand the Constitution. Maybe we need a national test on the rights guaranteed by the Constitution that all politicians must pass before they can run for any public office.
I do wonder why Florida has one stupid politician after another in the news, and they are always Republicans and Tea Partyers that end up embarrassing the general population. Why? Are all citizens of Florida really that ignorant?
Response to 1Greensix (Reply #47)
MrMickeysMom This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)not a question of upholding the First Amendment of the Constitution? ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5465962 )
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)It's a right to free speech, assuming you're living on the same planet as other Americans.
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)The mayor - who was sworn to uphold the constitution did the demanding. As a state actor, the mayor is prohibited from abridging the individual's right of free speech, a right which includes both expressive conduct - and the right not to be forced into speech. By demanding that the individual stand for the pledge of allegiance - in violation of his right to be free from state compulsion to take part in such expressive conduct, the mayor violated his sworn duty to uphold the constitution.
I linked to the two relevant U.S. Supreme Court cases in the post I directed you to to in my last response.
yourself - you might want to sign up for a basic civics refresher.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)The mayor is an elected official and depending on what model he or she operates within a local government. This LOCAL form of government can operate under it's own charter (home rule) or under the state code (e.g. borough law). They either have a strong or weak power to operate with a board of supervisors or council, but their duties in meetings are to preside and rarely is this outside rules (current "Roberts Rules or Order"
. That body is local and is not one that would be considered a child of the state.
And, while we're at it, the links you tossed around are not "relevant U.S. Supreme Court cases". Flag desecration of displaying what you want on a license plate is not what we are talking about here. I can't believe you'd try to make such an spurious argument, unless you just wanted to be contrary and not engage your brain.
Tell me if you've ever served as an elected official because you don't talk like somebody who ever has.
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)And I teach law.
The First amendment is applicable to all levels of government through the 14th amendment. Local governments are state actors for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment as it applies to make the First Amendment of U.S. constitution applicable to state actors.
The flag desecration case is one of the cases which make it clear that freedom of expression is not limited to verbal expression - but also includes symbolic speech (expressive conduct), like flag burning and, as applicable here, sitting during the pledge of allegiance. The individual intended it as expressive conduct, since it was a continuation of his repeated requests to change the invocation - and the mayor perceived it as such, because conduct which was not expressive could not have expressed disrespect.
The license plate is one of the cases which make it clear that freedom of speech also includes freedom from compelled speech. The state cannot force an individual to "speak" the state slogan, by including it on their license plate. Here, the mayor cannot force the individual to express respect for the troops by requiring him to engage in the expressive conduct of standing when the pledge was being said.
If you don't like plowing through cases, here is a lay explanation of the reach of the First Amendment:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/208044/First-Amendment
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Why is that?
This IMO would be laughed out of the Magisterial District Court level. Were there a municipal ordinance that was specific as to how citizens had to act during the Pledge of Allegiance, I'm sure it would be tested there…. and likely not heard!
I served constituents in a community of 30 thousand people for 5 years as an elected member of council who dealt with a mayor, and solicitor, public hostile environments and also graduated a local government academy my first year into this.
You're reaching…. really …. and I think is beyond odd.
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)As an executive officer, the First Amendment applies to actions he takes in his official capacity, whether he is enforcing a local law or his own whims.
The Supreme Court cases I cited are binding on ALL lower courts, including the Magisterial District Court level. It would not have crossed my mind (or that of any competent attorney) to provide you with local cases when there are Supreme Court cases on point. Local courts are subservient to those above them, and they are required to follow the precedent set by the higher courts. If they refuse to do their job (laughing the case out of court, for example), the party who has been wronged always has the right to appeal to a higher court, including - ultimately - to the Supreme Court of the United States. Not to mention that if I were handling the case, I would file it in the Federal District Court, since it is purely a Federal constitutional question. Local courts often don't handle constitutional questions well, and most First Amendment cases are filed in Federal District courts for that reason. If it was important enough to take to court I wouldn't waste my client's time and money in the state court system.
The analysis I've outlined is pretty well settled law. Neither of the decisions in the cases below depend on which state actor is involved (or whether the act came as a statute or, as here, a requirement imposed by a state actor). But it is worth noting that even in an educational setting, where those in charge have MORE leeway, individuals cannot be compelled to recite the pledge of allegiance,
— Justice Robert Jackson in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
And, in Federal Appellate decision (which was not appealed further to the Supreme Court), regarding a student who refused to stand during the pledge of allegiance:
Lipp v. Morris
Your condescending comments to the poster whose position I started defending were out of line.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)By finding your whole argument very odd??? Somehow, you go through great lengths to point out what superseding law would say about unrelated complaints.
However, an incident such as what the mayor cried about you go to these lengths to show that you know about law, yet you demonstrate NOTHING on any case law encompassing this complaint by the mayor, or as you point out regarding mayor's relationship to the state, "the actor"? Yes, I find that odd. It does not relate to what that mayor though they could demand. THEY are not to be confused with the law relevant to local government over which the mayor presides in the case of this meeting.
Why don't you show us all where (in this case) the mayor's demands represent what LAW applies relevant to a municipal meeting? If this is something you cannot do, then please do not bother yourself with another non-answer. I have better things to read today.
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)I said, "Your condescending comments to the poster whose position I started defending were out of line."
You said to that poster, "The Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with sworn oath to uphold the constitution...You're showing your ignorance."
As I said, that comment was pretty condescending, especially since that poster was correct. I figured I'd point out where I had already provided the constitutional analysis, you'd say, "Oops - sorry - my bad" and be done with it.
If you don't like my analysis, here's pretty much the same from organizations which routinely win cases at the Supreme Court, using some of the same cases you seem to think are irrelevant - the Freedom From Religion Foundation:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/08/31/3477694/florida-mayor-ejects-citizen/
Complete analysis
And the ACLU
"People are not required to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance or a sectarian prayer or any kind of compulsory expression just to attend a public meeting," he said.
"The problem with telling people they have to participate in any mandatory expression is that it tells people who might have a religious objection or other deeply held belief that, if they don't go along with what the government tells them to do, they aren't welcome in this community."
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-mayor-tosses-man-for-not-standing-for-pledge-of-20140829,0,80941.story
If my analysis is so screwy, spurious, and off base, don't you think it is a bit unusual that entities whose primary role in life is winning First Amendment cases are saying the same thing?
I'm frankly baffled that someone who was sworn to uphold the constitution has so little knowledge of the basic court structure in this country (that Supreme Court decisions control the decision of all lower courts), of government structure (that, regardless of how the municipality is organized, all municipalities are political subdivisions of the state - and are subject to the First Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment), and that the First Amendment is also applicable to executive officials (the Mayor) when he is acting in his official capacity (as opposed to acting as a private citizen). The Mayor does not have to be enforcing a law to infringe an individual's first amendment rights.
You are not getting the answers you think are relevant, because your underlying assumptions (noted above) are faulty. When I gave you the best law possible, you asked me to provide legally irrelevant lower court decisions. Now you are suggesting that unless I can point you to a law the mayor's demands represent, his actions didn't violate the First Amendment. The mayor's demands don't represent a law. The mayor is an executive officer. When he acts in his elected capacity, in constitutional terms, his actions are the actions of the state, whether he is acting in accordance with a law - or on a whim of his own. Just because you believe a law is required to bring his actions under the First Amendment doesn't make it so.
At this point, I'll let an editorial writer express my opinion, in the context of another mayor who acted from her gut before consulting town counsel:
The author of the editorial in question stated that Kay and the Weymouth town councilors were going to get pay raises. According to Kay, this misrepresentation by the author was irresponsible and the reason why she ordered the papers removed. According to Kay, she was “letting [her] emotions get involved in [her] judgment.” Kay said that only after talking to the town’s Solicitor did she realize that her actions violated the First Amendment.
...
The only other option is not much better for the Mayor. The second possibility is that she knows nothing about the U.S. Constitution. If she knew even the basic principles behind it, she would have known that her action was unconstitutional. Assuming that she is telling the truth, then she does not know the basic principles behind the supreme law of the country which as an elected official she is bound to follow. This possibility may be even worse than the first.
There is not any other realistic possibility for the Mayor’s actions in this case. Either she knew full well that her actions were unconstitutional or she knows nothing about the Constitution. Either way, both of these possibilities do not look good for the Mayor. If someone is going to be the Mayor of a town, he or she must know the laws he or she is supposed to enforce and respect them enough not to violate them.
http://bluemassgroup.com/2011/02/mayor-of-weymouth-violates-first-amendment/
But, having dug yourself in this deep I doubt you will ever acknowledge that you are mistaken. So all there is left to say is that I hope before you run for office again, you do some serious brushing up on the Constitution, as it applies to local governments.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Great posts.
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)But it seems to be falling on deaf ears, so I don't expect this last one to make much difference.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)… My initial statement about the first amendment having nothing to do with sworn oath was in response to the mayor's removal of a citizen for not standing for the pledge. That sure is true that he or she must know the laws. What he decided to do in my interpretation was odd, because in my poor reading of it first pass, it was to have been based on the first amendment? Well, that was really odd. This is why I said the first amendment had, "nothing to do with sworn oath". I might have understood you better by knowing we were not discussing some opinion from the mayor's role. I seek to be understood here and understand others, so, if I incorrectly read into what led me to that statement, I surely erred. I see from this Orlando case and other cases such as Greece, NY, this first amendment challenge was from the citizen's rights when deciding not to stand. FFS, what would one do if they had to explain in public, "No, I have neuropathy" or some other malady?
You don't have to worry about me running for office again. No good deed ever goes unpunished. This is something you likely do not wish to understand, and frankly, you're better practiced at admonishing persons about running rather than know what I directed my argument to. So, rather than probe as to whether the law they had to abide by was under home rule charter, which really is a municipal constitution, thanks for that great advice.
I can tell you this, though. A mayor does not serve as an executive, but an elected position of limited to presiding over meetings, kissing babies, and running the meetings in accordance with Robert's Rules.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)lawyers have: "Trying to argue legal issues with a non-lawyer is like trying to teach a pig to sing. You don't get anywhere and all it does is annoy the pig".
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)It escalated when the person I was explaining things to revealed that she had been an elected public official, sworn to uphold the constitution. In that case, I think it is kinda important to understand what it says. Especially since the conversation started with saying violating this guy's rights had nothing to do with the mayor's sworn duty to uphold the constitution.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)you had been admirably patient in explaining points that really shouldn't have needed much explanation. But, in the final analysis when the answer after all that is "I don't care what YOU say the law is, I THINK..." it's probably best to fold your tent and steal away into the night.
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)There are a few legal doozies in that last post that I have decided it is not worth trying to clear up.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Sorry, 1Greensix, but I totally misunderstood the context of who exactly was violating the first amendment, and didn't need to direct that comment to you. I apologize.
I could tell you how stupid politicians follow one after another, but I think you might already know, and ignorance is not limited to the Sunshine State.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)but I get sick to death of constantly being told I must respect the troops. If a person doesn't stand for the pledge how will the troops overseas even know about it?
indie9197
(509 posts)I was thinking of making a bumper sticker saying "Support Our Wars", but I don't think anyone would understand the satire.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)Better title. Man who keeps poking dog gets bitten!
"Though Rees said he did not know Richardson by name, he recognized him from previous meetings as the man who sits in the front row and then leaves after the invocation and pledge. "He doesn't come to the meetings because he cares about the city," Rees said."
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)Whether he is there for 5 minutes, or 5 hours, he cannot be required to engage in expressive conduct.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)whistler162
(11,155 posts)run from the point.
Not unexpected.
IF this had happened the FIRST time the citizen had gone to a meeting then there is a reason to throw a newgroup fit. Multiple repeats of the same action before a reaction from the Mayor changes the story. Then it just makes the citizen and the newsgroup readers that think this is some great and shocking violation of the citizens constitutional rights look like fools!
Logical
(22,457 posts)Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)This man has the right, under the First Amendment to go to the first 10 minutes of every single town meeting and sit through the pledge of allegiance every single time. Even on the 1000th time, the mayor does not have a right to require him to stand. Even if he going solely to protest what he believes to be an inappropriate way of starting town meetings.
It doesn't have to be great and shocking to be a violation of his constitutional rights, and when his rights are violated he has a right to complain about it.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)progree
(12,948 posts)The freedom of a government official to impose his theology on others (Town of Greece v. Galloway). As sacred, perhaps, as the freedom of a "closely held" corporation's owners to impose their theology on their religiously untutored employees (Hobby Lobby).
Thank GOD we live in a free country. Free at last, free at last! Thanks to Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, we have religious freedom at last!
[font size = 1, font color = gray]{Bitter angry sarcasm thingy}[/font]
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)because the atheist guy brought it on himself by not staying at meetings or something. 
progree
(12,948 posts)to say either 
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)The mayor "allowed" him to sit through the prayer - but required him to choose between standing and leaving for the pledge.
Depending on how the invocation is handled - the mayor may be ok on the religious freedom front.
progree
(12,948 posts)or object to having to hear it in order to attend/participate in a government meeting.
[font color = red]Edited to add:[/font] That is my objection to it.
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)was the choice the mayor gave him to engage in expressive conduct, or leave the meeting. Attendance at a governmental meeting (or any part thereof) cannot be made contingent on forced speech (or expressive conduct) - regardless of the content of the speech.
His motivation was to change how the town starts its meetings - but why he chose not to stand is not relevant to the violation of his first amendment rights by the Mayor.
And - unfortunately - as to the pledge, so long as there is no forced participation, that is a losing prospect - it has been fought and lost already. After Greece, fighting meetings starting with religious prayers - as long they are carefully structured - is also a losing prospect. I don't agree with the interpretation in Greece, and I support his right to continue to protest and agitate for change, but why he was protesting doesn't have anything to do with the violation of his rights here. The violation would be the same if he had been protesting because the invocations were not Christian enough for his tastes and he had been forced to choose between standing for the invocation or leaving the meeting.
tblue37
(68,422 posts)from swearing secular oaths.
Therefore, a Jehovah's Witness who refused to stand for or to participate in saying the Pledge would be exercising his freedom of religion, and a mayor who had him removed for doing so would be violating not just his free speech rights but also his right to freedom of worship.
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)My faith is also the reason I do not say the pledge, so I am well aware of faith based reasons not to participate in the pledge.
But he wasn't required to say the pledge or leave. He was required to express respect for, "American military troops who are serving overseas and others who have given their lives in defense of freedom" by standing, or leave. As to the expressly religious component, the Mayor didn't require him to stand for the prayer. Unfortunately, when requirement is generally applicable, and not directed specifically at suppressing the expression of religion, it is generally a losing case to fight it.
progree
(12,948 posts)the troops?
To me its a religious freedom issue (as well as a free speech issue) that I have a right not to have to stand up for, or mouth theocratic expressions of faith -- nothing in Greece or any of the Pledge cases changes that. (I realize the Pledge cases and Greece case requires me to have to listen to this garbage or leave).
I agree that free speech issues also cover this and more issues, e.g. a right to not stand for or mouth the Pledge, for example, because pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth is silly. Or because the Pledge doesn't mention Jesus at all. Or whatever.
I'm just not sure that freedom of religion has no part of this -- and I suspect the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which you say is involved in this -- would agree with me. Do they agree it's only a free speech issue?
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)it would be a hard argument to make. If I was filing a case I'd probably throw it in - but I wouldn't spend much time on that argument just because it barely passes the laugh test given the current interpretations of both the establishment and free exercise clause.
I suspect the FFRF is involved because he has been fighting the way they start the meeting with both a prayer and the pledge - but unfortunately, after Greece, unless the town is stupid (and given this incident they may be) there's not much chance of winning on the prayer - and none at all on beginning the meeting with the pledge.
progree
(12,948 posts)Are you saying that people would have to stand for the prayer, or leave? Where's that in the Greece ruling?
[font color=blue]>>I suspect the FFRF is involved because he has been fighting the way they start the meeting with both a prayer and the pledge - but unfortunately, after Greece, unless the town is stupid (and given this incident they may be) there's not much chance of winning on the prayer - and none at all on beginning the meeting with the pledge.<<[/font]
So FFRF's involvement in this began before the Greece ruling? Sounds a bit far fetched to me that the FFRF would continue if they didn't think there was a religious (as well as free speech) issue involved -- being forced to stand for a theological declaration (the Pledge) is clearly a religious freedom issue (as well as free speech issue), and nothing in the Greece ruling forces people to stand (or else leave) during prayers or theological declarations. FFRF picks its issues carefully from what I've seen.
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)What I did was draw a contrast between the mayor's treatment of the portion that was expressly religious (he "allowed" the man to remain seated) and his treatment of the portion that is not expressly religious (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) - he gave the man a choice - stand, or leave. Because he treated the prayer differently than the non-prayer, the mayor's demand was directed to forced political speech, not establishment of religion.
The Greece decision was not a generally applicable prayer-is-ok-at-all meetings decision. What I am saying is that FFRF was almost certainly involved before the publicized violation of free speech, and was likely supporting his broader, underlying, request to change the way the town opens its meetings. Depending on how the prayer is structured, it may not meet the standards of Greece - and I suspect that is the source of their involvement. They likely believe it does not meet the standards.
What I have been discussing is the clear violation of free speech that recently occurred in forcing the individual to choose between standing and leaving the meeting..
progree
(12,948 posts)[font color = blue]>>Because he treated the prayer differently than the non-prayer, the mayor's demand was directed to forced political speech, not establishment of religion. <<[/font]
Does not compute. They are both exercises in theocracy. That the mayor treated the prayer differently from the Pledge does not suddenly mean that being forced to stand for the Pledge is no longer a religious freedom issue.
[font color = blue]>>Depending on how the prayer is structured, it may not meet the standards of Greece - and I suspect that is the source of their involvement.<<[/font]
Maybe so, maybe not -- this from the article:
As annoying as it is, it doesn't sound like a prayer that violates Greece. Not even close.
[font color = blue]>>What I have been discussing is the clear violation of free speech that recently occurred in forcing the individual to choose between standing and leaving the meeting.<<[/font]
And what I have been discussing -- being forced to stand for a theological declaration (the Pledge) -- is also a clear violation of the Establishment Clause.
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)Richardson was NOT required to stand for the prayer. He was required to stand for the pledge. In other words, other than hearing the words, his forced participation was in the non-religious speech.
Had he been forced to stand for a prayer, then I would agree that it is a mixed religion/speech issue because it would be both forced speech and forced participation in a religious exercise.
The fact that the commissioner offered a prayer may well violate Greece. The fact pattern in Greece was, "the monthly town board meetings in Greece, New York, have opened with a roll call, a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, and a prayer given by clergy selected from the congregations listed in a local directory. . . . Greece neither reviewed the prayers in advance, nor provided guidance as to their tone or content in the belief that exercising any degree of control over the prayers would infringe both the free exercise and speech rights of the ministers."
That fact pattern of Greece includes two things not necessarily present here: (1) the prayer was not given by clergy - but rather by government officials and (2) the prayers may not be representative, over time, of the range of local religions. Greece did not address the former - it only addressed prayers given by local clergy. As to the latter, I haven't seen any description of whether, over time, the prayers were representative of the religions in the local community.
progree
(12,948 posts)[font color = blue] >>Richardson was NOT required to stand for the prayer. He was required to stand for the pledge<<[/font]
SO WHAT! That he wasn't required to stand for one theological exercise but not another doesn't suddenly change applicable law, namely the Establishment Clause of the Constitution of the United States of America. It doesn't suddenly change being forced to stand for the Pledge from a mixed speech/religion issue to solely a free speech issue. And please see in #125 the mayor's apparent reason for treating them differently is because the invocation was already underway, and he apparently finally decided to let it continue rather than push the standing issue at this point.
[font color = blue]>>Had he been forced to stand for a prayer, then I would agree that it is a mixed religion/speech issue because it would be both forced speech and forced participation in a religious exercise. <<[/font]
I'm glad you are acknowledging that being forced to stand for a prayer may be a violation of the Establishment Clause. Now why isn't being forced to stand for a theocratic declaration (the Pledge) not a violation of the Establishment Clause?
As for your last 2 paragraphs about possible violations of Greece -- I agree, but note that none of that was in FFRF's article. Rather, they emphasized the being forced to stand or participate in both the invocation and the Pledge, and not at all whether they violated any of Greece's guidelines of what is a proper prayer and/or who is giving the prayer.
http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/21252-atheist-group-condemns-mayor-police-chief-for-ejecting-citizen-who-refused-to-stand-for-prayer
progree
(12,948 posts)or that the Greece ruling makes the religious argument irrelevant --
http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/21252-atheist-group-condemns-mayor-police-chief-for-ejecting-citizen-who-refused-to-stand-for-prayer
...Mayor John Rees told everyone present at the meeting to rise for the invocation and the pledge. As the prayer began, Rees interrupted, pointing at the seated Thoreau and saying, “We’re waiting for everyone
to rise.” Thoreau repeatedly asserted he did not have to and remained seated. The sectarian prayer, given by a commission member, continued.
When Thoreau also refused to stand for the pledge, Rees ordered Police Chief George Brennan to “either escort him out or have him stand for the pledge.” Rees continued, “This is just not fair to our troops
and people overseas, sir.”
... {FFRF Staff Attorney Andrew} Seidel informed Rees and Brennan that it is also unconstitutional to coerce citizens into showing deference to prayers, writing, “The government cannot ask people to stand, let alone force people to stand under threat of arrest.”
...As a remedy to this violation of Thoreau’s civil rights, FFRF urges Rees and Brennan to each explain at the next meeting that “citizens are within their rights to remain sitting for the pledge and that it does not reflect a lack of patriotism. In fact, refusing to rise and repeat the pledge is more patriotic and respectful of the godless, secular Constitution that created this nation, than rising and declaring our nation to be 'one nation under God.'”
The letter informs the officials to expect members of the Central Florida Freethought Community to be at the next commission meeting. “In a show of solidarity with John,” Seidel wrote, “they will exercise their First Amendment rights to remain seated during the invocation and pledge, both involving gods and a religion they do not worship. Mayor Rees and Chief Brennan ought to honor their rights.”
Also please notice in the first paragraph that apparently the only reason the mayor didn't insist he stand for the invocation, was that the invocation was already under way, and so he decided to let it go on at this point rather than to continue to interrupt the invocation, not because he drew a distinction between standing for the invocation vs. standing for the Pledge.
So I think your notion that somehow his forcing Thoreau to stand for the Pledge but not for the invocation suddenly makes the Establishment Clause issue of forcing someone to stand for the Pledge to be irrelevant because he treated the two (invocation and pledge) differently is pretty dubious.
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)The invocation was not underway when the first exchange occurred. The mayor announced they were waiting for everyone to rise, pointed at Richardson and asked him to rise. Richardson asked if they were waiting for him to rise. The mayor responded, yes, and Richardson said, "I don't have to." After a brief exchange, the mayor says I believe you will have to {unintelligible} for the pledge of allegiance, and then tells the person giving the prayer to go ahead. After the prayer there is a second exchange, in which the mayor begins, "Now sir, please stand while we do the pledge - you don't have to pledge it, but please stand."
The mayor was clearly making a distinction between the prayer and the pledge, and "allowed" Richardson to remain seated for the prayer. He also explains that Richardson can be required to stand, "as children have to in school." (It is an incorrect belief, but it is the source of the distinction between how he treated the prayer and the pledge.)
FFRF's statement is legally accurate (he can't be forced to stand for the prayer, either), but doesn't describe the fact pattern in the meeting.
progree
(12,948 posts)I can't get the tape to load after waiting and waiting and restarting and waiting... so I'll accept your characterization of it. OK, I'll take that paragraph out of #125. Here is #125 Rev 1:
Please read this from FFRF, and then argue that FFRF doesn't think a religious issue is at stake
or that the Greece ruling makes the religious argument irrelevant --
http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/21252-atheist-group-condemns-mayor-police-chief-for-ejecting-citizen-who-refused-to-stand-for-prayer
...Mayor John Rees told everyone present at the meeting to rise for the invocation and the pledge. As the prayer began, Rees interrupted, pointing at the seated Thoreau and saying, “We’re waiting for everyone to rise.” Thoreau repeatedly asserted he did not have to and remained seated. The sectarian prayer, given by a commission member, continued. {{But see #129, where the invocation had not begun yet}}
When Thoreau also refused to stand for the pledge, Rees ordered Police Chief George Brennan to “either escort him out or have him stand for the pledge.” Rees continued, “This is just not fair to our troops and people overseas, sir.”
... {FFRF Staff Attorney Andrew} Seidel informed Rees and Brennan that it is also unconstitutional to coerce citizens into showing deference to prayers, writing, “The government cannot ask people to stand, let alone force people to stand under threat of arrest.”
...As a remedy to this violation of Thoreau’s civil rights, FFRF urges Rees and Brennan to each explain at the next meeting that “citizens are within their rights to remain sitting for the pledge and that it does not reflect a lack of patriotism. In fact, refusing to rise and repeat the pledge is more patriotic and respectful of the godless, secular Constitution that created this nation, than rising and declaring our nation to be 'one nation under God.'”
The letter informs the officials to expect members of the Central Florida Freethought Community to be at the next commission meeting. “In a show of solidarity with John,” Seidel wrote, “they will exercise their First Amendment rights to remain seated during the invocation and pledge, both involving gods and a religion they do not worship. Mayor Rees and Chief Brennan ought to honor their rights.”
I think your notion that somehow his forcing Thoreau to stand for the Pledge but not for the invocation suddenly makes the Establishment Clause issue of forcing someone to stand for the Pledge to be irrelevant because he treated the two (invocation and pledge) differently is pretty dubious.
###### End of #125 Rev 1 ###################
As argued in #128 minus the "mayor's apparent reason" part which, anyway, is not all that material as to whether forcing someone to stand for the Pledge is or is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. The mayor's interpretation of what or what is not allowed does not change the Constitution.
And as argued in #128 - the FFRF news release does not get into the Greece stuff at all.
And thanks again for acknowledging in #126 that being forced to stand for a prayer may be a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Now why isn't being forced to stand for a theocratic declaration (the Pledge) not also a violation of the Establishment Clause?
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)(1st Circuit, 9th Circuit) declared the phrase "under God" in the pledge to be of a "ceremonial and patriotic nature" and not an establishment of religion (federal circuit court). In an earlier version of the case which did not reach the merits, the Supreme Court did not opine on whether the phrase turned the exercise into a religious one - but 3 justices separately, in concurring or dissenting opinions, opined that it did not. A fourth recused himself because he had publicly commented to the same effect. The Supreme Court has since declined to hear the appeals from each of the Circuit Courts which held that the phrase "under God" did not make the pledge an establishment of religion. Even though they are from the next tier down, the language used in the Circuit Courts is remarkably similar to the language in the Supreme Court's recent Greece v. Galloway. In addition, the Supreme Court has pretty consistently refused to hear appeals from Circuit Court cases making similar challenges to "In God we Trust" on money - leaving standing the lower court decisions which have treated such phrases as secular.
If the court rules, consistent with the Circuit Courts, that it is not a theocratic declaration (as the Circuit Courts have), (1) there is no violation of the establishment clause by starting meetings with it, and - so long as one is not forced to engage in expressive conduct, no violation of either free speech or the free exercise of religion. If one is forced to stand for what the Supreme Court has declared is a secular pledge, it would be a stretch for them to turn around and agree that forced standing for a secular pledge infringed on the free exercise of religion - rather than the much clearer violation of the free speech clause.
progree
(12,948 posts)on religious grounds, not free speech.
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)It has done so in the past - and every Federal Circuit level case on the pledge in which they have participated had gone badly for them, and they have been unable to convince the Supreme Court to review the decisions.
progree
(12,948 posts)Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)on free speech grounds. It is extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court will waste its precious docket space to create a new basis for a right that it has already acknowledged exists as a matter of free speech.
I wouldn't waste my money donating to an organization which thought fighting that battle was a wise use of resources, and I wouldn't spend my time on that battle. If you feel different - be my guest.
Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #138)
progree This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #138)
progree This message was self-deleted by its author.
progree
(12,948 posts)I'm sure the FFRF has competent attorneys that know about all this as much as you do, and if they make a big hoo-hah about the blatant theocratic declaration in the Pledge, that is absolutely fantastic from where I sit. (I have read your #134 carefully).
Anyway, somebody has to litigate this Winter Garden case -- if it comes to that -- and I would happily donate to that.
Any way to resist theocracy, be it lawsuits, protests, boycotts, legislation, whatever, is a better use of time and money, to me, then a lot of what I see going on here. I'm for any way to get the message out why and how some of us feel discriminated against and angered by having our First Amendment violated.
I'm sure they will also bring in the West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette case (U.S. Supreme Court, 1943, as you've mentioned above, decided on free speech grounds) -- so they don't end up losing the lawsuit -- if it comes to that -- by solely making an Establishment Clause argument.
I'm not too familiar with FFRF, but I have been reading Church and State, the magazine of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (A.U.) for about 3 years, and I think they know the "lay of the land". https://www.au.org/church-state
I'm about to donate a large amount (for me) of money -- enough that it hurts -- to some U.S. Senate candidate that is close in the polls -- knowing full well it's a quixotic gesture on my part because I know with 99.9999999999% certainty that it's not going to change any outcome.
So is every protest I've ever attended a quixotic exercise.
Just because the courts have ruled in certain ways doesn't mean we shut up and fall in line forever. Just because we're not making progress, and overall going backwards in our fight against theocracy, is only more reason to make waves publicly any way we can.
There have been several reversals of even Supreme Court rulings through history, and legislation, and the constitution itself.
All progressive causes that I can think of started out looking like quixotic exercises by sickos, nuts, whackos, flakes, kooks, and ding-dongs. As Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
Heck, since we're talking about the Pledge, I was flabbergasted to find out that the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in just 3 years on a Pledge case --
from the Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) case where they ruled 8-1 that students have to salute the flag and say the Pledge
to the West Virginia State Board of Ed v. Barnette (1943) case where they ruled 6-3 that they did not have to.
May the quixotic litigation go on:
https://au.org/church-state/june-2014-church-state/au-bulletin/humanists-challenge-pledge-of-allegiance-in-nj
“Public schools should not engage in an exercise that tells students that patriotism is tied to a belief in God,” David Niose, legal director for the American Humanist Association, which is representing the family, told the Los Angeles Times.
The American Humanist Association v. Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District case was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey for Monmouth County and rests entirely on provisions in the New Jersey Constitution, including its Equal Protection Clause.
Students do have the legal right to opt out of the Pledge, but the family alleges that their child had been harassed at school for refusing to recite it.
(a similar case -- also based on equal protection -- didn't fare well with the Massachusetts Supreme Court (July 2014) - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-reid/massachusetts-supreme-cou_b_5311538.html )
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)That one did surprise people. Most predicted that Barnette would cement Minersville. There were differences, which I do not recall at the moment, but most people did not expect them to matter - but they did (so it wasn't precisely a reversal, but it was an unexpected shift).
Good luck. I tend to watch more, and assess when the court is ready to move, because I know from personal experience what it feels like to create bad precedent for an entire state by pursuing quixotic efforts too soon. 16 years later, and that decision still governs the state. This year may end it. But - I'm not going there again and, when it is something I care deeply about - that I don't want set back by a premature case - I also discourage others from filing too soon.
Standing for the pledge I care about - and that is on solid ground. A couple of religious words in a pledge I don't say (ironically for religious reasons), not so much. Best wishes, and knock your socks off.
Good research, by the way. You've found most of the key cases that are out there.
Owl
(3,767 posts)
Journeyman
(15,444 posts)I haven't repeated the pledge since, and I've no intention of ever repeating it.
The way I figure it, once you pledge yourself to something, if you truly mean it, you need never do it again. In fact, to do so -- to engage in a "doctrine of continual reaffirmation" -- makes a mockery of the original vow, as only a meaningless pledge needs constant updating. I affirmed my commitment to the Constitution as a young man. If I ever change my mind, I'll renounce my pledge. Until then, I consider it my word, freely given. Any attempt to make me renew it simply insults me and casts aspersions on my honor.
As for those who insist it should be recited on multiple occasions, who would prefer to see it rendered meaningless through reduction to nothing more than a rote recitation, I often wonder, if they can't trust me to keep a pledge quietly, what's my mumbling it going to mean?
Perhaps we should just reduce it to a “Reader’s Digest” version: “I pledge allegiance to liberty and justice for all.” Short and to the point, non-controversial, useful for all peoples on the planet.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Sometimes I stand, sometimes I don't.
I find the Pledge to be thoroughly fascist, with a huge dose of forced religion added.
progree
(12,948 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 31, 2014, 10:51 AM - Edit history (1)
Golden Valley City Council Member Tries but Fails to Remove Pledge of Allegiance from Meetings
(Steve Schmidgall)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/12/golden-valley-city-council-member-tries-but-fails-to-remove-pledge-of-allegiance-from-meetings/
(Golden Valley, Minnesota, 1st suburb straight west of dowtown Minneapolis)
one big reason I voted for him in November 2013.
[font color=red]Edited to remove the "Hmm," at the beginning of the subject line[/font]
whistler162
(11,155 posts)immediately after the pledge etc. or does he stay and participate in the meeting. Which is what the story hinges on. This is a citizen that wanted a certain reaction and after multiple attempts got it.
progree
(12,948 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 31, 2014, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)
what you are getting at. I think the city council member shows every bit as much courage -- perhaps more -- it is an elected position and it was an issue during his reelection campaign. It's not like he refused to say the Pledge only once or something like that. And he did officially ask for the Pledge to be removed.
[font color=red]Edited to add:[/font] Both deserve to be commended for standing up for the separation of church and state multiple times. [font color=red]Edited to add:[/font] And for standing up multiple times against the clowns that want to use government to impose their theology on the rest of us.
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)The story does not hinge on whether he stays for the meeting or leaves. He is entitled to attend as little, or as much, as he wants of his town meeting and still be free from forced speech (the expressive conduct of standing during the pledge).
If you read the articles, his goal was not to provoke a certain reaction, but to protest the manner in which the town hall opens its meetings. That is pure political speech, the most protected speech there is.
tblue37
(68,422 posts)Besides, going for the first few minutes and refusing to participate in what is an imposition of forced political expression and of forced religious expression at a government meeting was obviously meant as a protest against what he considered to be a violation of citizens' First Amendment rights--and engaging in such a protest is itself a protected First Amendment right, so no matter how often he did that, the mayor had no right to have him removed.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)One he is quite likely going to lose.
...dork.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)unless it is through Fred's Friendly Law Associates, who's slogan is "We Take Any Case No Matter How Meaningless If You Pay Up Front".
Ms. Toad
(38,581 posts)Both the ACLU and Freedom From Religion Foundation are interested, and FFRF has already communicated with the city.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)No real debate about that.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)As well they should be.
tblue37
(68,422 posts)he will win the suit, so why would he shy away from suing?
Paladin
(32,354 posts)Those American soldiers protecting freedom overseas are actually defending the peoples' right to not participate in the Pledge. Catch a clue, bureaucrat.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I find it offensive that some people expect us to prove our patriotism 24 hours a day. Who the hell is John Rees to tell me whether I respect my country or not? I have nothing to prove to him. My refusal to stand is a MUCH greater expression of freedom than his order for me to stand instead of sit.
Assholes.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)I stand every time, but if someone told me to stand, I might not.
I don't think the "real" Americans actually get it....
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Remember Bushies and their loyalty oaths? What models...
Generic Other
(29,080 posts)
Alice Rosenthal, a Jewish girl, is forced to give a Hitler salute for her school photograph.
American children pledging allegiance pre-1942.
Even at their World War ll concentration camps, Japanese American children were coerced into taking the loyalty oath.
I don't see any difference.
Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)I'm British, but I generally stand out respect though. I try to avoid places where they do that sort of thing though. The last place I had to endure it was the State Dem convention, where I sat next to a man not partaking in it either. He whispered to me, "I'm native American" and I whispered back, "I'm British". lol.