This time they are warning us about a recent court ruling in Salt lake City that basically says if one group is allowed to display a monument in a park – e.g. a Ten Commandments monument – then any other group shoud also be allowed.
These opinions hold that managers of city parks may not make reasonable, content-based judgments regarding whether to allow the erection of privately-donated monuments in their parks. If they allow one private party to donate a monument or other permanent structure, judging it appropriate to the park, they must allow everyone else to do the same, with no discretion as to content – unless their reasons for refusal rise to the level of “compelling” interests.
(Check out the full court ruling here)
Seems pretty reasonable, right?
Not to the ACLJ. Then again, the ACLJ aren’t known for being reasonable.
In this case they argue that this court ruling opens up parks to people who want to erect “a Hitler memorial” right next to a “Holocaust memorial”!
They even include a picture of Hitler just drive their point home:
Only the ACLJ could make the argument that a court ruling that seeks to avoid favoring one religion over another is somehow similiar to a guy who killed six million people because of their religion.
Categories2018 2020 Activism Budget Civil Rights Congressional Races Economy ECOT Education Environment Fair Elections Federal Governor's Race Governor DeWine Guns Health ICYMI Justice Labor LGBT Ohio Legislature Ohio Legislature Plunderbund Plunderbund Action Portman Presidential Safety Senate Race State State Government Statehouse Races Statehouse Races Swing State Voices Taxes and Spending Trump Women's Rights