Federal Judge Says San Francisco's Labeling of Catholics as "Hateful" is Constitution


#1

Does that mean the Catholic Church is now a “hate group” under the Constitution? :mad:

**Federal Judge Says San Francisco’s Labeling of Catholics as “Hateful” is Constitutional
***Urges Archbishop of San Francisco and Catholic Charities to defy Church directives on adoptions by homosexuals
*By John-Henry Westen

SAN FRANCISCO, December 13, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In March of this year the City of San Francisco issued one of the most startling attacks on the Catholic Church coming from a governmental body in the United States in half a century. The governing body of the city of San Francisco - the Board of Supervisors - voted unanimously to approve a resolution blasting the Catholic Church for its opposition to homosexual adoption. That resolution has been deemed “constitutional” by Federal Judge Marily Hall Patel, in a recent ruling which is being appealed by the Thomas More Law Center.

Full Story

This ruling is disgusting and needs to be overturned immediately. In addition, this judge must be removed from the bench by ANY LEGAL MEANS POSSIBLE.

In the mean time, any Catholic who comes in from of this judge must demand that she recuse herself from the case due to her bias.


#2

This is a pretty interesting story, while it doesnt really prove anything legally I agree this could be a way (or indication of future intention) to in the future classify the Church as a “hate group” and as a result subject to legal action.


#3

District Judge Patel… ruled that the Board resolution …does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the matter, commented, "Our constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith.

I think the ruling is a mistake, but It will be justice will be done if it is overturned on appeal.


#4

It will be two appeals. I do not see the 9th Circuit overturning it due to their past record. The only consolation is the majority of their decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court


#5

Let’s just call the ruling for what it is: bigoted. The city of San Francisco has essentially said, “If you are a practicing, devout Catholic, you are not welcome in our city.”


#6

If the Church is ruled to be a hate group, I assume that any action or statement against the homosexual agenda by the Bishops, can be prosecuted as a hate crime. I’m not a lawyer, but it sounds like a bunch of bull to me.


#7

Well, I guess I’ll have to oblige them. I will do anything I can to avoid visiting that place again.

Peace

Tim


#8

Is the judge a former Catholic?


#9

this is goverment sponsored social conditioning.

“do as we say, think as we tell you, go with the flow and don’t contradict.”

thats the ultimate goal of any powers that be. control actions thereby negating thought.

The judge is just a stooge in the game.


#10

Reading the article, color me surprised that the judge making the ruling is a Carter appointee and one time counsel for NOW.

That’s surprising…not. :rolleyes:


#11

And at Ohio State University condemning homosexuality is sexual harrassment! :mad: Don’t give up! The western world is dying out very quickly, but we’re not dead in the water yet. FIGHT BACK!!!


#12

SAN FRANCISCO, December 13, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In March of this year the City of San Francisco issued one of the most startling attacks on the Catholic Church coming from a governmental body in the United States in half a century. The governing body of the city of San Francisco - the Board of Supervisors - voted unanimously to approve a resolution blasting the Catholic Church for its opposition to homosexual adoption. That resolution has been deemed “constitutional” by Federal Judge Marily Hall Patel, in a recent ruling which is being appealed by the Thomas More Law Center.

What legal force, if any, does this resolution have? If it is just the Board of Supervisors expressing its opinion (i.e., sucking up to their constituents) then I don’t see how it can be un-Constitutional.


#13

How disgusting. The Catholic Church is far from being a hate group. It is the most loving group I’ve ever been a part of.


#14

Yes and no. While the opinion might not have any legal teeth to it, the fact that a government body is expressing hostility to any religion is unconstitutional. If their resolution is allowed to stand, they can start discriminating against Catholics or anybody that doesn’t bow down to pro-abortion and pro-gay agendas.


#15

I read the article in full, but I still don’t understand what this resolution DOES. It sounds like they wrote up an opinion, and then they called the opinion a resolution because they all voted on it. Putting aside the fact that it’s anti-catholic, what exactly was this supposed to accomplish?


#16

Yes, the liberal communists will take over this nation IF WE LET THEM! Learn the lesson from the fall of Rome.


#17

:twocents:

Perhaps the Church should put the city on notice a la:

“The city government is free to rule as they please. But if it intends to persist in this hateful and intolerant course, the Church respectfully requests the city stop calling itself after the name of one of our most beloved Saints.”

:rolleyes:

“Have fun changing all the maps, signage, stationery, et cetera”,
tee


#18

They know it is hate speech and wrong. They just want the Church and organizations like TMLC to spend their limited money.

It is extortion.


#19

Is it unconstitutional? I agree that if public buildings displaying the Ten Commandments or Christmas trees is a violation of the Establishment clause (not sure how), then a government body issuing a resolution, in the name of all the people of San Francisco, calling the Church’s moral teaching hateful, ignorant, etc., must be too.

The first amendment states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Technically, no law was made, speech and the press are still free, and people are still able to peaceably assemble and petition the government. So, extremely stupid and bigoted and irrelevant to government? Yes. Unconstitutional? I’m interested to see the arguments.

I found the federal judge’s explanation amusing. The question as to whether political bodies must remain silent is one thing, but saying that the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith provoked it is a joke. Yes, the moral teaching of the Church was specifically designed to provoke the elites in San Francisco. Uh-huh. Here was what the judge said, according to the Thomas More Law Center newsletter:

“The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement, by its [doctrinal] statement. This court does not find that our case law requires political bodies to remain silent in the face of this provocation.”

The Law Center’s lawsuit claimed that the City’s anti-Catholic resolution violated the First Amendment, which “forbids an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion, religious beliefs, or of religion in general.”

review.law.mercer.edu/old/46302ft.htm#N_72_:
68. 403 U.S. at 612-13. Lemon v. Kurtzman, the landmark case in Establishment Clause jurisprudence, held that in order for the challenged state action to be considered constitutional, it must: (1) have a secular legislative purpose; (2) have the primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

Upon further review, it does seem to be pretty clearly unconstitutional.

  1. What is the secular legislative purpose? none that I can see
  2. Does it neither advance nor inhibit religion? Guess it depends on how inhibit is defined.
  3. Does it foster an excessive government entanglement with religion? Not only religion, but specifically Catholicism.

#20

A tip o’ the hat :tiphat: to milimac, for digging deep enough to find the reference to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Good GRIEF! :rolleyes:

This is the same crew that last year [post=1469017]labeled[/post] native son* William Cardinal Levada as “a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear.”

:whacky: Moon-bats, I tell ya’! They are barking moon-bats! :whacky:

:twocents:
tee

(* Or at least: “passer through”)


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.