Seriously????

[guido911]

No where in his pleading has he asserted that he was prohibited from the free exercise of his religion.  Seriously, how has TPS stopped him from practicing his religion?  What religion prohibits you from entering into another house of worship?  Section 1983 claims must point to a sincerely held belief/practice that prohibits you or requires you to take certain actions at work, and your employer fails to make reasonable accommodations.  He has pled he doesn't like Muslims.    Period.  

Bullcrap. His free expression cause of action is pled in his very first claim. Go to paragraphs 67-76. And to answer the rest of your questions, read the complaint.

http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/OklahomaMosque-AmendedComplaintwithExhibits--Filed.pdf

For some background, in Combs v. Corrections Corp. of America, 977 F.Supp. 799, 803 (W.D.La. 1997), the Court restated a legal concept set forth in the 1940s by the Supreme Court, that is "[t]he free exercise clause of the First Amendment embraces two concepts: the freedom to believe and the freedom to act. 'The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.'" Quoting, United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86, 64 S.Ct. 882, 886, 88 L.Ed. 1148, 1154 (1944). In explaining the difference between a free exercise claim and an establishment claim, the Seventh Circuit in Venters v. City of Delphi,  123 F.3d 956, 969-70 (7th Cir. 1997), pointed out that "[t]he free exercise clause...guards the individual's practice of her own religion against restraint or invasion by the government." The distinguishing characteristic between a free exercise from an establishment claim is coercion. Id. Now, as to his civil rights claims, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, prescribes in pertinent part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...

   In order to exercise his remedial rights under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege "(1) deprivation of a federal right by (2) a person acting under color of state law." Watson v. City of Kansas City, Kan., 857 F.2d 690, 694 (10th Cir. 1988). That's all that is required. I think he has pled that, but if it is lacking, then he can amend to cure the defect.

As for cynical suggestion that this officer doesn't like Muslims, which I have no idea where that is coming from, this is what he alleges in paragraph 80:  "Defendants targeted Plaintiff for adverse and discriminatory treatment because he refused to engage in an association that was contrary to his religious beliefs and convictions in violation of his right to expressive association."

You still haven't responded to the illogic of your argument that it is acceptable (whether you care or not) to put "In God we Trust" over buildings & require people to enter it, but you cannot require a police officer to enter a Mosque.  If this case were successful, think of what that would mean.  You could never require a public employee to enter a structure that expressed any religious ideas counter to their own.  You couldn't require teachers to enter schools that held voluntary prayer meetings.  You couldn't have voting booths in churches.  You couldn't require firefighters to enter into burning religious structures.  

Having said that, TPF should have stuck with a volunteer policy.  Anyone who hates Muslims that much probably won't be doing TPF any good by being forced to attend a function.

What is illogical about the putting of (I mean "encouraging" the placement because that is what the law actually says not what you want it to say:  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc112-13) "'In God we Trust' over buildings & require people to enter it, but you cannot require a police officer to enter a Mosque." The former is a constitutionally tested and satisfied national motto and the latter is a potential violation of an individual's civil rights. As for the rest, I never said a policeman could not be required to enter a mosque. If a crime was being committed in there, or there was an emergency situation, the officer in my opinion has a duty to enter to perform his job. The rest of your point is a rambling slippery slope that is so far flung I cannot even take it seriously.

Here is a wiki article about a Supremes opinion I quoted portions from in another thread which I hope will help you see where I am coming from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorach_v._Clauson

As I read his complaint, NO WHERE does he allege that he does not want to enter that religious institution to respond to a call. His point is that he does not want to go there and to subjected to whatever activities they had planned which he felt were inconsistent with his religious principles. PERIOD. If that makes him an Islamaphobe or bigot in your opinion, have at it.

PM, in this thread your apparent anger about this officer having the gall to not want to be forced to attend an event at a mosque has in my opinion left you with no objectivity. You may need to face a reality that some people in this country are just not as enlightened or tolerant as you--oh wait, you are the one essentially calling the officer a hater. Nevermind.

[custosnox]

Cannon, I don't know how to get through to you. Yes, you are correct that Christians believe that if you don't accept Jesus then you will go to hell. I believe that. I also believe that my faith is the one true faith, and that others are fake, but I do not resent people that disagree with me. I accept it. Anyways, can you name me a religious person, or even a non-religious person who does not believe the whole "I am right and you are wrong" thing? I can obviously tell that you believe that you are right and I am wrong. Anyone who truly, wholeheartedly believes in something will say that anyone who disagrees with them on said subject is wrong. It's the way of the world.

I really think you need to take a bit of time to study some Eastern Religions.  The idea of absolutes that so many in the Western world have seems to really blur there. 

The whole comment about if you don't accept Jesus you will go to hell thing pretty much says my way is the only way, and your way is not good enough, which goes back to CF's comment on the superiority. 

[ZYX]

I really think you need to take a bit of time to study some Eastern Religions.  The idea of absolutes that so many in the Western world have seems to really blur there.  

The whole comment about if you don't accept Jesus you will go to hell thing pretty much says my way is the only way, and your way is not good enough, which goes back to CF's comment on the superiority.  

I'm sorry if I sound like it, but I do not think that I am superior to anybody. I do believe that the belief system that I have chosen is the best one can choose, but I do not discriminate or place myself above those that believe differently. I only believe that my beliefs are correct and that their beliefs are not. I understand if they believe otherwise. And once again, I believe that what I say is the same that the most Christians I know would tell you. I will not deny that there are "Christians" who think they are superior, but from my perspective they are not the majority.

[custosnox]

I'm sorry if I sound like it, but I do not think that I am superior to anybody. I do believe that the belief system that I have chosen is the best one can choose, but I do not discriminate or place myself above those that believe differently. I only believe that my beliefs are correct and that their beliefs are not. I understand if they believe otherwise. And once again, I believe that what I say is the same that the most Christians I know would tell you. I will not deny that there are "Christians" who think they are superior, but from my perspective they are not the majority.

"I'm right, your wrong" is a stance of superiority.  I understand you don't think it is, and don't feel as if your trying to be superior, just that what you say pretty much is that.  But, as you say, those that turn their noses down at everyone else with distain do not represent all of Christians and that represents a whole other level of trying to be superior, or as most want to call it "Hollier than thou".

[pmcalk]

Bullcrap. His free expression cause of action is pled in his very first claim. Go to paragraphs 67-76. And to answer the rest of your questions, read the complaint.

http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/OklahomaMosque-AmendedComplaintwithExhibits--Filed.pdf

For some background, in Combs v. Corrections Corp. of America, 977 F.Supp. 799, 803 (W.D.La. 1997), the Court restated a legal concept set forth in the 1940s by the Supreme Court, that is "[t]he free exercise clause of the First Amendment embraces two concepts: the freedom to believe and the freedom to act. 'The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.'" Quoting, United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86, 64 S.Ct. 882, 886, 88 L.Ed. 1148, 1154 (1944). In explaining the difference between a free exercise claim and an establishment claim, the Seventh Circuit in Venters v. City of Delphi,  123 F.3d 956, 969-70 (7th Cir. 1997), pointed out that "[t]he free exercise clause...guards the individual's practice of her own religion against restraint or invasion by the government." The distinguishing characteristic between a free exercise from an establishment claim is coercion. Id. Now, as to his civil rights claims, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, prescribes in pertinent part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...

   In order to exercise his remedial rights under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege "(1) deprivation of a federal right by (2) a person acting under color of state law." Watson v. City of Kansas City, Kan., 857 F.2d 690, 694 (10th Cir. 1988). That's all that is required. I think he has pled that, but if it is lacking, then he can amend to cure the defect.

As for cynical suggestion that this officer doesn't like Muslims, which I have no idea where that is coming from, this is what he alleges in paragraph 80:  "Defendants targeted Plaintiff for adverse and discriminatory treatment because he refused to engage in an association that was contrary to his religious beliefs and convictions in violation of his right to expressive association."
What is illogical about the putting of (I mean "encouraging" the placement because that is what the law actually says not what you want it to say:  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc112-13) "'In God we Trust' over buildings & require people to enter it, but you cannot require a police officer to enter a Mosque." The former is a constitutionally tested and satisfied national motto and the latter is a potential violation of an individual's civil rights. As for the rest, I never said a policeman could not be required to enter a mosque. If a crime was being committed in there, or there was an emergency situation, the officer in my opinion has a duty to enter to perform his job. The rest of your point is a rambling slippery slope that is so far flung I cannot even take it seriously.

Here is a wiki article about a Supremes opinion I quoted portions from in another thread which I hope will help you see where I am coming from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorach_v._Clauson

As I read his complaint, NO WHERE does he allege that he does not want to enter that religious institution to respond to a call. His point is that he does not want to go there and to subjected to whatever activities they had planned which he felt were inconsistent with his religious principles. PERIOD. If that makes him an Islamaphobe or bigot in your opinion, have at it.

PM, in this thread your apparent anger about this officer having the gall to not want to be forced to attend an event at a mosque has in my opinion left you with no objectivity. You may need to face a reality that some people in this country are just not as enlightened or tolerant as you--oh wait, you are the one essentially calling the officer a hater. Nevermind.

You always revert to personal attacks when all else fails.  

While you've cited the prima facie case for a 1983 suit, you have not pointed to the facts that substantiate a violation of the 1st Amendment.  Just saying "my right to free expression was violated" may survive a 12(b)(6) motion, but it sure isn't going to survive a motion for summary judgement.  He must either allege an anti-establishment claim, or a free exercise claim.  As I said before, you have no right to be free from all religious expression at work.  This was not a religious service conducted by the police--it was by a third party.  Again, police routinely are exposed to religious services in the course of their work, as are other public employees.  Police are in the Synagogue during High Holy days.  Teachers enter school where students are conducting voluntary prayer.  Election officials work out of churches.  No one was requiring him to believe/practice/participate in any religious service against his beliefs.  He just had to be there.  If he wants to allege that they violated the free exercise clause, he must allege that he had a specific, sincerely held religious belief that prohibit him from entering a Mosque (akin to the Rastifarian who wanted to wear dreadlocks, Jew who wanted to wear a Kippah; Jehovah's Witness who doesn't want to salute the flag).  He doesn't allege that.  Instead, he alleges (in paragraph after paragraph--38 through 58) all the things that are wrong with Muslims.

As for a violation under the establishment clause, being "coerced" to attend a function is not the same thing as being "coerced" to adhere to religious tenets.  As I said before, he must assert that the intent of the employment decision was to advance a religion or that primary effect was to advance religion (i.e, the Lemmon test).  Unless you adhere to the "tinfoil" belief that Muslims have infiltrated the police force, and that the plaintiff's supervisors are part of a larger jihadist-plot, I just don't see how you get there.  Most rational people would see this for what it is--an attempt by the plaintiff's supervisors to ensure good relations with the people who live and work in this community.
 

[patric]

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...

I wonder if this will be applied to the case of the officers who recently arrested a school principal "when she started to ask questions, 'do you have a search warrant? What are you here for? What are the names of the officers; why are you here; what are you doing?' When she started to call someone, they took her phone away and at that point, put her into handcuffs and put her into the squad car"

"Harmless speech" shouldn't be actionable under color of law, regardless of the speaker.

[guido911]

You always revert to personal attacks when all else fails.  


 

Fantastic. You call this officer a Muslim hater, I call you on it, and YOU accuse me of personal attacks. As for the rest, it's a matter of opinion as to whether he has pled enough. But at least I am trying to be objective.

[custosnox]

Fantastic. You call this officer a Muslim hater, I call you on it, and YOU accuse me of personal attacks. As for the rest, it's a matter of opinion as to whether he has pled enough. But at least I am trying to be objective.

You, objective?  Do you own a dictionary?

[guido911]

You, objective?  Do you own a dictionary?

Read my posts in this thread. I noted that the claims are sufficiently stated, and I also noted the qualified immunity problem that is coming down the pike.
I do not like arguing with Clavins who are clueless when it comes to the complexity of civil rights litigation, so I will back off responding to your stuff as far as this issue goes. Mainly because I do not want to waste my time attempting to get you to learn something.

[heironymouspasparagus]

See pmcalk - he's calling you a Clavin.  Just like you said, always resorts to name calling.  Well maybe that's because (!! Name calling alert here !!) he's a lawyer.  (Worst name I could think of on the spur of the moment.  Well, and after much reflection, too.)

[RecycleMichael]

I was going to have a battle of wits with guido, but he is only half-prepared.

[Red Arrow]

See pmcalk - he's calling you a Clavin.  Just like you said, always resorts to name calling.  Well maybe that's because (!! Name calling alert here !!) he's a lawyer.  (Worst name I could think of on the spur of the moment.  Well, and after much reflection, too.)

You can do better than that.

[custosnox]

I was going to have a battle of wits with guido, but he is only half-prepared.

kinda like going after an unarmed assailant with a ball bat?

[heironymouspasparagus]

RA,
How?  I thought that pretty covered the universe!?

[Red Arrow]

RA,
How?  I thought that pretty covered the universe!?

Maybe I misjudged you and you are not as clever as I thought.  I'm not too good at insults so I'll have to pass on suggestions.

The Universe is a big place.