SCOTUS: Gov't not required to honor all faiths equally

[Straha]

Calling something 'religious expression' does not immunize it from removal if it's hateful or incitement any more than yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater is protected expression if you're lying to start a panic.

It isn't hate speech to laud polygamy. Nor would Mormon groups argue it to be hate speech to memorialize the Israelite origins of Native Americans (they would say it's factual, and to not represent it would violate the establishment clause.)

However rather than get bogged down in that side channel, try this for an example: If a Baptist group gives a monument to a city memorializing the anniversary of god creating Earth, animals, and man in six days and nights six thousand years ago to be displayed publicly in a park, should the city be forced to display it? Even though you, me and any sane person knows it to be wrong?

[Kanastrous]

If the city already displays monuments of that kind, yes; if one religious perspective is being endorsed by its maintenance on public property then others can fairly demand to be represented, too.

If the city does not already display such monuments, no. Public property shouldn't be used for the purpose at all, and the proposed Baptist monument is no more desirable than any other monument of its kind.

If it's true that polygamous arrangements are disproportionately harmful or abusive to women, perhaps memorials lauding the practice could be regarded as non-protected speech because they advocate for unequal gender rights that promote domestic violence.

Native Americans might regard the Mormon assertion regarding their history as libel. If they were to bring a case maybe they could sue for removal of the monument, on those grounds.

And look at me get all bogged down in the side channel, after all.