The AP reports:
Edwin Crayton was chased away by a Natchitoches police officer from the front of [a] Wal-Mart store in early October when he tried to protest what he believes is the company's stand on gays, according to the ACLU, which filed a lawsuit on his behalf.
The ACLU said the police officer told Crayton that he needed a permit to protest ....
When Crayton protested he held a sign that read, "Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Lifestyles And Marriage. Don't Shop There." ...
After the ACLU sued, the parties agreed to suspend the ordinances as to the plaintiff until a final hearing on the permanent injunction, and the court implemented that through a court order.
The ordinances involved require permits (for which $10 is charged) for "[a]ll public gatherings" and all "open air public meeting[s]"; while such ordinances would be constitutional when the meeting or gathering is large enough, I doubt that they'd be constitutional for small demonstrations, especially given that sometimes such demonstrations quickly react to recent events. I've read several circuit cases that have in fact held that such ordinances are impermissible unless they exempt small groups (though the required cutoff is not entirely settled). And it's hard to see why such an ordinance would be constitutional as to solo demonstrators, even if it on its face purports to apply to such demonstrators (something that's not clear, since one person holding a sign is literally hard to call a "gathering[]" or a "meeting").
Thanks to Allen Asch, author of the ACLU Fights for Christians Web page; and thanks to the ACLU of Louisiana for taking the case.
A permit for having an opinion?
Lol.
This is the new posterboy for Christian rights? Oy!
AFAIK, this is a Free Exercise case, as are all the cases cited in the link. Whatever its merits on Free Exercise cases, the ACLU's legal thought on the Establishment Clause is somewhere between five and eight different kinds of stupid.
Rebuttal to what? That the ACLU has NEVER taken a case defending a Christian? That'd be a rebuttal to a strawman.
GAH! So many freedoms in this country I can't keep track of them all.
Anyway, I think my larger point stands: I haven't heard of a single case where the ACLU defended a Christian person/group on Establishment clause grounds... I could be wrong, though.
Could that be because the Establishment Clause (even under the restrictive-- and incorrect-- interpretations placed on it by conservatives) restricts government power to favor particular religions, something that in practice usually means favoring Christianity over other religions or nonreligion? Usually, when a Christian is complaining about his or her inability to practice his or her religion, it is styled as a free exercise or free speech claim. In contrast, the plaintiffs in establishment clause cases are usually people seeking to prevent Christianity from being shoved down their throat by the government.
That said, I am sure there are cases where the nominal plaintiffs in establishment clause cases, arguing excessive governmental entanglement with religion, have been Christians. And I am sure that the ACLU has represented or supported them.
I know of a some Establishment Clause cases with Christians on BOTH sides. For example, in ACLU v Capitol Square Review, the ACLU plaintiff was a Christian minister objecting to Ohio's motto "With God, all things are possible" because he thought the government endorsement tainted his religion