A legal remedy is needed

I am no fan of the SF Bd of Supervisors, but this lawsuit idea seems extremely lame and reflects poorly on the Catholic League and the Thomas More Center.

I really dislike it when Catholics play the "discrimination" card. First, it is too much in the way of the world. Second, Catholics are "discriminated" [sic] against, not because of ignorant prejudice but because their beliefs directly contradict those of the prevailing culture. (We're supposed to be signs of contradiction, and Jesus warned us that we would be hated for it.)

As I understand the resolution, it was nothing more than a (stupid) expression of disapproval. A public response seems appropriate, but not a legal one. If and when they enact laws that interfere with the ability of Catholics to practice their faith, THAT is the time to resort to legal action. This type of ridiculous posturing litigation does nothing more than aggravate the already too-prevalent disrespect for Catholics.

You have a point about Jesus telling his followers (more or less) "you will be hated for following me". But sometimes it is right to let jerks have it and let them know that you will not accept bigotry, meanness, or immoral acts. Remember Jesus did kick over the tables of the money-changers. This is even more true when you let a hypocrite, i.e. Leftists, "progressives", open-minded, and anti-hate advocates have it. This recent behavior shows that "they" are as capable of hatred as anyone else. This lawsuit is now part of American History and will forever demonstrate to the future that an environment of Hate existed by progressives towards Catholics.
We often condemn bigotry towards Jews as anti-semitism, and Racism , but why not anti-ecclestic (sp?) or anti-Christian behavior? I believe because it is an effort to control influence. Undermine an organization Like the Catholic Church, and Leftists have it made. Otherwise, they'll have to deal with another Polish/solidarity type of uprising against their beloved Marist/Hive leftwing politics. They don't like that. This suit while in many ways does little, actually is signifigant in regards to principle.
Please read Thomas Woods recent book, "how the Catholic Church built Western Civilization".

In a cultural environment where just saying "I must object to your statement in the strongest terms" will barely get a yawn (if printed or reported at all), litigation, even if otherwise fruitless, is often the only way to keep that objection from being buried on the back page.

Also, to wait until the rights of Catholics are actually taken before taking some kind of action away is close the barn door after the horse has escaped. The idea is not to lose those rights in the first place.

Vince, I hear what you're saying about not waiting until the animals are out the barn door. But there's another old expression that applies here - choose your battles.

Even if viewed from a purely tactical standpoint, it is not going to be a good move to file a lawsuit that will be promptly dismissed because it has no merit.

Not that the suit will get that far, but I wonder what these lawyers would do when asked to provide proof of a single Catholic who has abandoned the faith (or even slacked off) because of the alleged "chilling effect" of this resolution. More likely, the Board could present proof of thousands of Catholics whose faith was strengthened because they got ticked off at the Board's officious meddling.

Tactics aside, I think that filing frivolous lawsuits is vengeful and morally wrong -- no matter how much your adversary may deserve it. It is especially shameful when a Christian organization does it, IMHO.

As soon as a political body denounces a religious body with a resolution or proclamation, citizens should prick up their ears. I see nothing wrong morally with a lawsuit. Perhaps it will make other city councils, township boards and the like be a little leery of issuing such frivolous resolutions.

But, Miss Jean, the First Amendment protects speech in the public sphere. Even really stupid and ugly speech, and even anti-religious speech.

I don't have any problem with filing lawsuits when the government starts encroaching on religion. The Free Exercise of religion is protected by the First Amendment, too. But to sue politicians every time they say something ignorant is a waste.

(Plus, the "resolution" was all impotent foot-stamping anyway, because Catholic Charities shut down its adoption program. In other words, SF drew a line in the sand, and CC crossed it and won, and the Board was transparently trying to save a little face.)

There are so many bigger fish to fry than the SF Board of Supervisors and their ridiculous "resolution."

If you lived in CT, you would not have a problem with this lawsuit. Everywhere we look we see attempts by legislators not only to express anti-Catholic bigotry, but to enact it into law. Acting before the horse is out of the barn is absolutely right. In Canada now it is illegal, apparently, to express Catholic teaching - you can be ARRESTED for speaking in favor of Catholic sexual teaching. In CT, laws are being shoved through to force Catholic hospitals to provide the abortion pill and to pay for benefits for same sex "unions."

At first it was just, "let us have our civil rights" or "abortions" or whatever. Now it is,
"you MUST provide abortions, recognize gay 'marriage', play by our rules, etc." What's next? I would hate to think that my grandchildren will have to worship in catacombs.

Don't laugh. Look at anti-Catholic history. Once the sharks smell blood in the water, they won't stop. Look at how the priests were arrested at John Paul II's seminary. Look at Mexico in the 20s and ll the maryrs.

People need to learn history!!

The Board of Supervisors sounds like a cheap Scooby-Doo villain. "We could have gay adoption, if it wasn't for those meddlin' Catholics!"

You are exactly right, Tina! :-)

Cassandra, I do not live in CT, but I have been watching the "signs of the times" and am very mindful of what you are talking about. However:

First, Canada and Europe do not have an equivalent of our First Amendment (which protects public speech and the free exercise of religion), so they are getting away with restrictions on speech/religion that would be unconstitutional in the U.S. That is why, for example, we see clergy being arrested for speaking out about homosexuality in Canada (and I believe there is one in Sweden), but so far not here. So, there's that.

Second, it is inappropriate from a legal standpoint to conflate "mere speech" with "action." One doesn't have to live in CT to be painfully aware of what CT and other states are doing about requiring Catholic institutions to prescribe contraceptives, perform abortions, and "embrace" alternative lifestyles. But as far as I know (I may have missed something), California is the only state in which a Catholic organization has sued over it. I think THIS type of lawsuit is very well-founded, even though Catholic Charities lost in CA, and I don't know why more Catholic institutions aren't suing over these laws.

But the SF resolution was just spouting off - it was an expression of opinion by the Board. As such, I believe it is protected by the same First Amendment that protects a U.S. priest's right to preach against homosexual behavior or abortion. The resolution did not purport to place any restrictions on Catholic teaching or practice; essentially, all it did was say in vitriolic tone that the Supervisors didn't approve of Catholic teaching or practice with respect to homosexual behavior. It didn't go farther, I submit, because the Supervisors or their counsel told them they didn't have the legal right to go any farther. So, there's that, then, too.

In other words, the CT laws you are talking about have "teeth" - they are attempting to force Catholic institutions into doing something that is "against their religion." The SF Supervisors merely expressed an opinion (odious thought it may have been), which they probably have a right to do.

This is why I think the lawsuit will be thrown out and is a waste of time and resources. I'd rather be fighting the real battles, such as the laws you cite in Connecticut.

Miss Robin, I apologize for misunderstanding the nature of your city's resolutions. Perhaps SF works differently, but if my city board discusses and passes a resolution against an entity, the resolution is more than just a statement of opinion. It is a precursor to political action (or inaction); e.g. not granting permits for parades or buildings for certain organizations. In such a case, the resolution is an action and we have had lawsuits after such resolutions. (Most recently and ironically, to protect the KKK's First Amendment rights.

Miss Jean, please don't think that SF is my city - heaven forbid!

I live about 3,000 miles away, where things are usually much more courteous. :-)

I understand that the SF resolution was a "non-binding" resolution, meaning it is sound and fury, signifying not much . . . this time, anyway.

I apologize if I was too forceful about this yesterday. Today I re-read the resolution, and it really is awful.