U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Florida city's challenge to atheist lawsuit

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON -The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a Florida city's bid to fend off a lawsuit by atheists accusing officials of violating constitutional limits on government involvement in religion by staging a prayer vigil following gun violence that wounded three children.

The justices turned away an appeal by the city of Ocala of a lower court's ruling endorsing the right of the plaintiffs, backed by the American Humanist Association, to sue over legal harms they said they sustained attending the 2014 vigil in which uniformed police chaplains preached a Judeo-Christian message.

The plaintiffs accused Ocala of violating the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment "establishment clause," which restricts governmental involvement in religion. Ocala had urged the justices to reject the claim that the plaintiffs, as "offended observers" of religious messages, had sustained legally recognizable injuries.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting from the decision to reject the appeal, expressed "serious doubts" about the legitimacy of lawsuits based on injuries sustained by offended observers.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/u-s-supreme-court-rebuffs-florida-city-s-challenge-to-atheist-lawsuit/ar-AA18hofy

[Timeflyer]

1. Pray in church, you hypocrites, and care for children by passing gun control laws.

[Wild blueberry]

2. YES

Thank you.

[Harker]

3. I'm an offended observer of Clarence Thomas...

and the illegitimate supreme court, generally.

[mountain grammy]

6. Agree!

[Orrex]

4. Thomas should fuck himself so hard that he turns inside out

[pandr32]

7. I am going to remember that line!

[bucolic_frolic]

5. Thus far the majority seems able to tolerate differing religious points of view

even if it is an atheist one, and thus support religious freedom or religious equality before the law. It's not great, but it's a foothold.

[pandr32]

8. +1

[ancianita]

9. +1

[FBaggins]

12. Not necessarily

This isn't a ruling on the merits of the case. It merely allows the claim to proceed in district court.

IOW - at least five agreed that at least one plaintiff had standing to bring the case. That doesn't mean that she'll win in court - let alone that the 11th circuit or SCOTUS will allow it to stand if she does.

[LiberalFighter]

10. Why the hell are there uniformed chaplains?

[cstanleytech]

13. You mean in the military? Probably to provide religuous supprot to those in the military

of that or similar faith.
I dont object to that offhand just as I do not object to those that have a faith from joining as long as they do not try to force it down the throat of others either directly or indirectly.

[LiberalFighter]

16. I don't see anywhere that it involves the military.

[walkingman]

15. Ever heard the phrase "Christian Soldiers"? Religion is pushed in the military.

The military chaplaincy seems to present a constitutional issue in that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause restricts the government’s authority to fund and endorse religion, but the military funds chaplains who promote religious messages.

Without freedom from religion, there is no freedom of religion...

[LiberalFighter]

17. I don't see anything indicating uniform police chaplain are military.

[walkingman]

18. LOL, your right - when I see chaplain I think military 😀 They are however government funded?

Seems that would also apply? I just think religion should stay out of government, it tends to bleed over into our laws.

[LiberalFighter]

19. It would appear that the uniformed police chaplain is not functioning as a police officer. So Why?

I have a problem with an organization that have members of different faiths or no faith performing their faith to others in the group. That should in my opinion be up to the individual to pursue their own pastor/clergy person. Otherwise, they are forcing their religion on others.

[NullTuples]

11. Not to be negative, but is this not how shadow dockets work?

What if the highly religious, Federalist Society justices *want* the case to wind its way through the system to them so they can set a precedent?

Or, what if they block any such case that doesn't feel well-crafted enough to give them what they want for America?

I just don't trust anything they do that seems...reasonable, any longer.

[MayReasonRule]

14. That's quite prudent and wise. Well said.