We can do this all night, but it’s probably prudent to just let sleeping dogs lie. Either way, here is the brief for BSA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale

Here is the holding in that case:

A private organization is allowed, under certain criteria, to exclude a person from membership through their First Amendment right to freedom of association in spite of state antidiscrimination laws.

You’re going to have to give me a cite on the St. Paddy’s Day case though.

As noted in the Fortress Bible ruling, there is some overlap between speech and the free exercise clause (religious expression), but this case is better construed under the latter for all the reasons mentioned above. Lawyer was right that there were similarities between Fortress and Cordoba, just wrong about the claims that the court ultimately accepted. The question was not whether freedom of speech can be used to argue (nominally) religious cases based on a relevant fact pattern, but whether this specific case was better suited for a claim under free exercise due to the more expansive nature of the right. It’s why Southern District Court of New York dismissed the claims under free speech. Were this not the case, it would have accepted the claims. Therefore, we can distinguish between the precedent you’ve offered and the facts of this case.

So no, Manju, I am not wrong.

Your other factoids are interesting, however. Feel free to keep them coming. Btw, I know this is waaay off topic, but in the spirit of vivek’s randomness, what are your thoughts on twombly?

haha. the grandstanding of wry continues. if you can’t hammer the facts, hammer the table as they say.

They won’t build it! Hardhats vow not to work on controversial mosque near Ground Zero A growing number of New York construction workers are vowing not to work on the mosque planned near Ground Zero. “It’s a very touchy thing because they want to do this on sacred ground,” said Dave Kaiser, 38, a blaster who is working to rebuild the World Trade Center site. “I wouldn’t work there, especially after I found out about what the imam said about U.S. policy being responsible for 9/11,” Kaiser said. The grass-roots movement is gaining momentum on the Internet. One construction worker created the “Hard Hat Pledge” on his blog and asked others to vow not to work on the project if it stays on Park Place. http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/20/2010-08-20_we_wont_build_it_hardhats_say_no_way_they_will_work_on_wtc_mosque.html

But no more (tho recent religious freedom acts do that). Interesting this has been lead by conservatives (scalia, thomoas) who wanted to make sure the Establishment clause wasn’t used to justify discriminating against religion, as left-wing justices often did…as with public school teachers can’t wear a turban b/c of excessive entanglement of state and religion. In the course of doing this they gutted sherbet…whichhad held that even neutrally applied laws unconstitutional if they burden a religion (see scalia opinion in the peyote case).

so expression is important b/c under the the free speech clause you must demonstrate you are an expressive group. so, a city has a lot of leeway to deny a bar a zoning permit, b/c its not expressive (except to libertarian purists) but less to a religious or political group. in the boy scouts case (and they are a nominally religious group), 4 leftists judges and the authoritarian left sought to deny the scouts free speech rights, ie the right to discriminate against gays (which is a freedom of association right existing under free-speech as well) by saying they are not an expressive group, or that the expression (anti-gay) was not central to their dogma, or (in the case of the NYTimes) even if it were the state had a compelling govt interest to restrict free speech.

also, expression is relevant b/c the speech in question may not be speech per say, but rather another form of communication, which is held to be protected under the first.

To all the lurkers out there, I hope this thread at least served to demonstrate why you shouldn’t be cowed down by brainless commenters (rahul), dubiously trained legal professionals (lawyer), or illogical bloggers (vivek) with baseless accusations of bigotry (or misunderstood case precedent in lawyer’s case). Not only does this tactic result in undemocratic muzzling of dissent and reasoned debate, but it dilutes the abhorrence of genuine bigotry and intolerance. So whatever your opinion, do have the courage to speak up, because as the demagogues here have shown, they’ll just keep declaring victory until proven wrong, at which point they’ll run with their tails between their legs. In spite of these characters, however, there are people on both sides of this issue with their hearts in the right place. Let’s respect this.    And with that, I hope you’ve appreciated the performance of our cast this week. Tune in next time for when vivek blogs on how pakistan’s ISI-jihadi complex has actually advanced the cause of liberal democracy in south asia. Adieu.

“You just got BRPWNED.

Happy Friday, everyone!”

You just got BRPWNED.

Happy Friday, everyone!

A mosque was built over a destroyed temple, as the Archaeological Survey of India report indicated. It was later razed in 1992 by hindu activists, a few years after Rajiv Gandhi had opened the locks to the mosque to allow Hindu worship there in acknowledgment of the claim. What is your stance, vivek?

Btw, you’re welcome to bring up this topic to “indulge your curiosity” or attempt to score rhetorical points, but it will probably detract from the argument you will, presumably, make.

What’s your stance on the construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple, Satyajit Wry?

If I recall, you were quite the oompa loompa back then too: