Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

Cakes and Compelled Speech: The Saga Continues

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Alliance Defending Freedom is the same organization that defended the Larsens’ case that was judged as not having standing due to the complaint was hypothetical, which is the same apparent condition here since no complaints were specified.  ADF also lost that lawsuit. (Link above)

It would appear certainty about standing may not be as strong a factor in ADF’s choice of taking cases as assumed by some.

If ADF is so lax and unprofessional, then they will continue to fail.  In contrast, the ACLU has for many years been the most effective civil liberties organization in America -- with more cases brought before the U.S. Supreme Court than any other organization, except the U.S. DOJ.  You don't get there without standing and good lawyering.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If ADF is so lax and unprofessional, then they will continue to fail.  In contrast, the ACLU has for many years been the most effective civil liberties organization in America -- with more cases brought before the U.S. Supreme Court than any other organization, except the U.S. DOJ.  You don't get there without standing and good lawyering.

How can they fail with that donate button on their webpage and media outlets stirring up outrage to get people to support them?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

ADF is so lax and unprofessional, then they will continue to fail

If their primary purpose is propaganda, then by losing they may serve their cause better depending on what their agenda is. (Agenda is meant to be neutral here, not implying a hidden agenda)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

media outlets stirring up outrage to get people to support them?

The headlines this time around focusing mainly on how democrats are forcing conservatives to work for them or get fined when nothing of the kind seems to have happened yet is unfortunately par for the course at this point.

https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/first-amendment-trampled-in-ann-arbor-lawsuit-asserts/

adf’s:  Michigan city under fire for law forcing citizens to promote political views they oppose

https://blackchristiannews.com/2019/08/conservative-consulting-firm-thinkright-strategies-sues-michigan-city-for-forcing-them-to-promote-liberal-viewpoints/

https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/michael-foust/city-sued-for-forcing-conservative-political-firm-to-promote-abortion-liberal-causes.html

And they keep coming...

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

A few answers on standing:

First I am discussing standing at a federal issue not standing for state courts. The state courts have almost unlimited power to hear a case, a federal court is limited in their jurisdiction. 

I. The plaintiff must have enough of a challenge that a favorable decision may be redressed. This means that the plaintiff is likely to recover from the defendant. 

2. The plaintiff needs to have suffered an actual injury. This means harm has occurred. if harm has not happened yet then it is not ripe. if it has already happened but has been resolved then it is moot. In cases of mootness, if the injury can happen again but gets resolved before it comes to trial then there is an exception to mootness and can be heard (e.g. abortion, but pregnancy and birth happened before it came to trial).  Note: organizations (i.e. the Sierra Club) also may be plaintiffs if the injury has a direct connection with their members.

3. The injury must be directly related connection to the case. This simply means the issue brought before the court is raised because of the harm caused.

Other Concerns Mentioned:

1. Calm, has mentioned propaganda and agenda. To me agenda is really not as important as a person who has been harmed no matter if he is gay, African-American, Muslim, Christian (including LDS). Even if ADF's agenda has focus on Christian clients (which they do), IMO it is a client who feels he/she has been harmed and do not have the financial or other means to have their side heard.

2. Action initiated for legislation is acceptable. Homer Plessy intentionally provoked litigation by refusing to go to the "colored section." It was one of the Supreme Courts worse ruling ever (see Plessy v. Ferguson), and it was eventually overturned. The Masterpiece case, the plaintiffs actively sought out a Christian baker who would refuse to bake their wedding cake. Even though I side with the defendant on this case, I am not opposed to the plaintiffs trying to find ways to get their voice heard. When I have written on this case in the past I have stated that the plaintiffs looked for bakers who would refuse them not because I thought provoking legislation is bad, but to show other purpose. 

3. Robert F. Smith mentioned the ADF is lax and unprofessional. Just an FYI, the ADF is a respected legal organization within legal circles even if you dont like them.

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If ADF is so lax and unprofessional, then they will continue to fail.  In contrast, the ACLU has for many years been the most effective civil liberties organization in America -- with more cases brought before the U.S. Supreme Court than any other organization, except the U.S. DOJ.  You don't get there without standing and good lawyering.

FYI, the ADF, has won 80% of their cases, over 55 at the Supreme Court. Although fairly new (established 1994) they are considered a legitimate and powerful legal source. Their website says they have:

  • over 3,300 allied attorneys
  • 300+ allied organizations
  • have did over 1,000,000 pro-bono hours (that is over $215 million in fees that clients did not have to pay)
  • trained over 2,100 attorneys
  • have over $50 million in case funding

Yes, the ACLU, is also a great organization and have been around for almost 100 years. I think legal advocacy organizations are a pretty good thing. I might not agree with some of the cases they defend, but I am glad to see there is a way for someone to get legal help, including counsel if they cannot afford it. I have contributed to both the ACLU and ADF. I have also contributed to the Innocence Project.

Despite how any of us may feel about the ADF, it should be considered a legitimate legal organization.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...