Supreme Court voids local sign ordiance


Readers!
 
Scroll down to read this post.
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

Some good news: In a 9-0 ruling the Supreme Court struck down a local Arizona town’s ordiance that restricted a church’s right to post signs about its upcoming events.

What is most encouraging about this ruling is that all nine justices agreed to it. This suggests that there is a strong majority on the court that supports freedom of speech, and will not look kindly at the Obama administration’s effort to impose its will on the speech and activity of religious and conservative organizations.

Share

One comment

  • pzatchok

    “The only supporters for the town were groups representing local government, which said in court papers the ordinance was legal in part because the restriction imposed on the church was the same one that other churches and civic groups advertising public events were bound by.”

    Basically they are saying that because other churches didn’t bring this to court then its obviously legal.

    Sort of the basis for liberal legal theology/philosophy.
    Pass whatever law they want and enforce it until its struck down by the SC. Until then its legal.

    How would they like it if a law was passed stating that gay people couldn’t adopt children?
    Enforce it until struck down by the SC.
    Then pass one stating that no child should be housed in a domicile with 2 or more homosexual people also residing there.
    Then after thats struck down pass one stating that gay couple can only adopt children not of their genetic sex.Gay men can only adopt girls and gay women can only adopt boys.
    Then after thats stuck down we could pass a law stating that all homosexual households with any children in them must have a permanent resident of the other sex in the home. To give the children balance and a better learning experience.
    Harassment laws can be passed going the other way. The liberals should learn that message.

    As soon as this sign law stated content was a basis for any restrictions then it was a targeted law.
    And who was targeted? Any and all groups that did not have a political or ideological message.
    Which leaves who? Churches and what else?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *