Here is the scoop on the “Seven Aphorisms of Summum”. In a decision that was pretty much expected from the U.S. Supreme Court has fully and unanimously ruled that a somewhat clandestine religious group / sect can not legally require officers in Utah to a monument in a park designated as public, that a monument of the Ten Commandments – that is, the proposed monument which shows the “Seven Aphorisms of Summum” (the source).
seven aphorisms, summum, nieuws
All this took place in the Case of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. The Court confirmed the decision of the officials in Pleasant Grove City, Utah to reject the Salt Lake City-based Summum’s request for a permanent monument displaying the Seven Aphorisms in the city that a string of other monuments, including the Ten Commandments one. The Summum charged that city officials violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment, the Ten Commandments to be displayed in the park, but the rejection Seven Aphorisms of Summum monument. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Summum, contend that the park was a public forum for private speech.
Unanimously and fully, the U.S. high court quashed the 10th Circuit’s decision proclaim the display of the monuments in the public park was, esentially, the public speech.
Justice Samuel Alito declared that the First Amendment “limited government regulation of private speech, but not in the regulation of public speech.” But Why would the courts discriminate against them? Maybe as they also run as a mummification service, for both humans and pets? Case closed?