Interesting Supreme rejection
The city of Ocala, FL has been at the center of a lawsuit in which an atheist claimed she suffered “damages” due to a prayer vigil held to support victims of a shooting. One can probably assume the prayer vigil was not conducted by gun-controllers, it ain’t their style to support victims – just dance in their blood to try and bring in guns bans. Anyway, she suffered “damage”. She sez.
The Court declined to hear the case, saying it should be handled at a lower level. While that in itself is fairly inocuous, some of the statements made by justices are interesting:
The city asked the Supreme Court to determine if the atheists were actually harmed by the prayer vigil to have their lawsuit move forward, and to rule on whether “psychic or emotional offense allegedly caused by observation of religious messages an injury sufficient to confer standing.” But the Supreme Court refused to intervene on Monday.
(Justice Neil) Gorsuch, in his statement, said the district court should reconsider whether the atheists had standing, noting that the Supreme Court “has never endorsed the notion that an ‘offended observer’ may bring an Establishment Clause claim.”
“It didn’t matter that the plaintiff went to the vigil knowing that she would be offended,” Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, wrote of the lower court’s decision. “What mattered was that prayers reached her ears.”
So the fact that she COULD be offended and went anyway does not necessarily affect her standing to file an “Establishment Clause” suit. A lower court ruled that she had standing and could file, but that was appealed. Gorsuch is saying “not necessarily so” and that this should be relooked. Clarence Thomas also weighed in:
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision, saying the justices should have reviewed the case to settle the so-called offended observer theory.
“I have serious doubts about the legitimacy of the ‘offended observer’ theory of standing applied below,” Thomas, widely considered the most conservative justice, said.
Kinda makes you hope that Mikey Weinstein’s multiple “I was so offended by a Chritian display” cases should be reviewed (doesn’t that asshole ever complain about anyone else?) – and hope he would get a chilly reception.
“Really, most every governmental action probably offends somebody,” Gorsuch, who agreed with the court’s decision not to intervene in the case….
That last one came from a 2019 case. Truer words were never spoke.
Category: General Whackos
Some professional bitch went there trying to be offended, leave me alone with him/her/it for JUST a couple of minutes and I’ll make sure he/she/its feelings are HURT!
Be more than feelings that get hurt. Why does the term “frivolous lawsuit” come to mind? We have become, in the words of Robert D. Raeford(?), (John Boy and Billy Big Show), the United States of The Offended. Or as I had to ask the 2nd ex Mrs, “you bitching for a reason or bitching for the shear pleasure of bitching?” She, too, would go out of her way to find something to bitch about.
This kinda reminds me of the “couple” that drove past dozens of bakeries to get to a town dozens of miles away to order a wedding cake from a bakery know to not believe in the type of “marriage” the couple was planning…and then sue the bakery for not wanting to bake them/their/its a cake.
Ya hear that roar in the background? It’s a Morbark wood chipper spooling up. I need to make some pre-fertilized mulch.
A Proud Infidel@,
Some of these atheist doth protest types
just feel the need to follow the footsteps of MMO’H,
who pulled it off in the 1960s,
then spent the rest of her life cashing in.
Ka-ching.
The part these newer atheist doth protest types seem to miss,
is that it didn’t end well for MMO’H.
https://www.newsweek.com/gary-karr-involved-killing-atheist-leader-madalyn-murray-ohair-gets-new-50-year-sentence-1575860
My only solace regarding Mikey … If you think it sucks reading about him, just imagine actually being him.
I refuse to believe prayer can actually offend anyone.
“Offended” is simply an excuse to bitch and whine, be heard and ultimately exercise rule over others because they’re just miserable conniving shitpigs.
Unless you’re forced to sit and pray with others against your will, justices everywhere should throw these kinds of cases out the door with prejudice.
I’m offended that there is a lawsuit against this. This is America, you have the right to leave until the prayer is said. Look at the NFL, they don’t come on the field until after the National Anthem is played. This lady needs to get a life
I checked my Dungeons and Dragons 7th Edition rules and it says that only worshipers of evil gods suffer psychic damage from prayers and burning candles of worshippers of good aligned deities. As a non-believer she should have been unharmed
If the “offended observer” theory is a real thing, can a city be sued because one is offended by gay pride parades and drag queen story hours?
They’d likely argue that bending to one’s religious beliefs (if the source of offense) would be dangerously close to establishment of a religion or some such thing. Otherwise they’d just scream “bigotry!” and toss bricks through windows and loot stores until they got their way… after which they’d just continue smashing windows and looting even more stores.
If speech be free, it could or should offend and if so that means it’s working!
May Jesus continue to watch over Mikey and his friends, please Lord provide them blessings upon blessings, and grant them long lives so as to provide them the opportunity to know You.
Amen.
“If free speech is offensive that means it’s working.”
I could not agree more. I would think that by this point in time people in government positions would understand that in their capacity as government officials they should not organize public religious ceremonies of any kind for any religion.
Citizens have a right to organize prayer meetings any time they like and any Atheist that gets “Hurt Feelings” and such will just have to suck it up.
Prayer neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg as my dear friend TJ says.
It looks like you miss quoted but that’s what I had originally and stand by it. Thank you for adding it.
I edited it ‘to be less offensive’ i.e. less direct about causing offense. I don’t think that’s necessary to get a point across.
About public prayer, I don’t have a problem with that so long as it is voluntary, and if included in a mandatory function (military formation, townhall meeting, congress, etc) that it be generic to the greatest extent possible or be a moment of silence.
Even as a ‘practicing’ atheist while in uniform it unnerved me to be asked to ‘pray’, but using the moment to stand head unbowed and reflect on the complexities of the universe was appreciated.
We can all get along, I pray we find reason to do so.
Exactly what I did, and do. I think people just like to stir up the shit now and then. If anyone finds it too offensive to be respectful during moments of prayer they are just too easily offended. Phuk em.
There is entirely too much common sense being displayed in this comment thread.
After all, gentlemen, this is still TAH… 😜
The only thing that remains the same around here is change.
I just had to juxtapose…
That bitch is way beyond Khameleon Veep in the stupid lessons. She should write a book on the best way to prove your stupidity !!!
You know, I’ve read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the other amendments. I’ve taken classes in history and taught history. And nowhere, nowhere can I find one single word to the effect that people have a right to not be offended.
Nowhere.
These crybabies need to shut up. If you go somewhere you know you’ll hear offense, don’t go. If you see something that offends you, look away. If you hear offensive stuff, move along and don’t listen.
Common sense ain’t so common these days.