I ask the following question for edification-- How does
one square this decision with the 4th Cir's willingness to permit the Wiccan
woman to be excluded from delivering prayers at city council meetings? I'm
blanking on the name of the latter case, but it would seem that equality is at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I ask the following question for edification-- How does one
square this decision with the 4th Cir's willingness to permit the
Wiccan woman to be excluded from delivering prayers at city council
meetings? I'm blanking on the name of the latter case, but
In this case, the Fourth Circuit per Judge
Motz found no viewpoint discrimination in the reserved power of the school to
exclude disruptive materials. Consider this from the dissenting opinion of the same
judge in Peck v.Upshur
County,155 F.3d___ (4th Cir) where
the question was the
CLS did not take a
position in the Wiccan case.
Greg Baylor
Gregory S. BaylorDirector, Center for Law Religious
FreedomChristian Legal Society8001 Braddock Road, Suite
300Springfield, VA 22151(703) 642-1070 x 3502(703) 642-1075
fax[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.clsnet.org
From: [EMAIL
This dispute has been to the Fourth Circuit
twice.
In the first appeal, Americans United for Separation of
Church and State, the ACLU of the National Capitol Area, the ACLU Foundation of
Maryland, the Anti-Defamation League, People for the American Way, the National
Education Association,
Greg Baylor wrote:
This dispute has been to the
Fourth Circuit twice.
In the first appeal, Americans
United for Separation of Church and State, the ACLU of the National
Capitol Area, the ACLU Foundation of Maryland, the Anti-Defamation
League, People for the American Way, the
In a message dated 8/11/06 4:32:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the second appeal, the National School Boards Association and the Maryland Association of Boards of Education filed an amicus brief supporting the school district.
The ACLU was not aware of the second appeal until the decision
The first appeal addressed (and resolved)the question
whether school distribution of Good News Club fliers violated the Establishment
Clause. The second appeal did not, instead focusing on whether MCPS's
somewhat peculiar new flier distribution policy violated the Free Speech
Clause. I
