Judge Upholds Boston’s Ban Of Christian Flag, Case Heads To Appeals


A lower court federal judge has sided with the City of Boston against a conservative organization who sought to fly the Christian flag on the city hall flagpole, a privilege that has been granted to several other groups promoting the LGBT agenda, communism, and other issues.

In 2018, we reported that Liberty Counsel, on behalf of Camp Constitution, had sued the City of Boston after their request to fly the flag had been denied.

Camp Constitution first asked the city in 2017 for a permit to raise the Christian flag on Boston City Hall flagpoles to commemorate Constitution Day on Sept. 17, as well as the many contributions of the Christian community to the city of Boston, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, religious tolerance, the rule of law, and our nation’s Constitution.

The flag pole had routinely been made available for the promotion of various other groups and causes, including the LGBT flag, the transgender flag, the Chinese Progressive Association flag, National Juneteenth Observance Foundation flags, and the national flags of many other countries, including communist countries like China and Cuba.

All of these values are apparently fine and dandy to the City of Boston, yet their own state’s history, our nation’s constitution, and the Judeo-Christian principles on which these were founded are inappropriate.

After “the close of discovery,” Liberty Counsel noted at the time, “the undisputed facts agreed to by the city show Boston has allowed nearly 300 flag raisings by private organizations on the city hall flagpole, which the city designated as a public forum for private speech.”

“The city refers to its flagpole as a ‘public forum’ and allows private organizations to temporarily raise their own flags on the flagpoles. However, the city censored the religious viewpoint of Camp Constitution’s flag, which was to be raised for about an hour while Camp Constitution supporters gathered below the flag to celebrate Constitution Week. The flag was part of the ceremony to honor the Constitution and recognize the Christian Founders,” Liberty Counsel continued.

Essentially, the Christian flag should have been protected as private speech, but that was not the case.

Last week, Judge Denise Casper found that the city created a new rule to prevent a Christian flag from flying on the flagpole, yet still insisted that there was no evidence the city had any “improper preference for non-religion over religion.”

“The city did not alter its procedures for review of flag applications because of Camp Constitution’s request,” Judge Casper claimed in her ruling.

The following day, Liberty Counsel announced their appeal of Judge Casper’s ruling.

Prior to Camp Constitution’s attempt to fly the Christian flag, the city had never denied a request before.

Boston officials claimed it was city policy “to refrain respectfully from flying non-secular flags on the poles in accordance with the First Amendment’s prohibition of government establishment of religion,” but it wasn’t until after Camp Constitution’s request to fly the Christian flag that they rewrote the rules to reflect that “at no time will the city of Boston display flags deemed to be inappropriate or offensive in nature or those supporting discrimination, prejudice, or religious movements.”

Both the LGBT movement and communism are discriminatory against Bible-believing Christians, yet their flags were flown without issue.

One could just about gag on the irony of city officials claiming, according to WND, that refusing to fly the Christian flag was necessary in order “to create an environment in the city where everyone feels included, and is treated with respect.”

Once more, we have a textbook case of the misapplication of the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which prohibits the establishment of a state religion. This is little more than anti-Christian censorship masquerading as religious neutrality.

Boston’s “open censorship continues against Camp Constitution’s Christian viewpoint” said Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver. “There is a crucial difference between government endorsement of religion and private speech, which government is bound to respect. Censoring religious viewpoints in a public forum where secular viewpoints are permitted is unconstitutional.”

How long before these people step up their game in their campaign to eradicate Christianity from society? Is their appreciation of communist China and Cuba a harbinger of what is to come?

I wouldn’t doubt it.

If you appreciate the work we are doing to fight the leftist assault on our values, please consider a small donation to help us continue. Thank you so much!