24 January 2012

Rutherford Institute Sues Lexington Over Flag Flap



Update: What do you think of this statement regarding Lexington's flag ordinance?

The key is that the city did not target Confederate flags, although clearly eliminating those was the driving force in its decision.
Have you ever read a clearer contradiction than that? It takes quite a bit of talent to contradict yourself so clearly in just one sentence.  Try to reconcile the two thoughts:

"The city did not target Confederate flags"

Yet . . .

"clearly eliminating those was the driving force in its decision."

Now, repeat the statements over several times to yourself. Am I missing something here? How can someone "not target" an object while simultaneously being motivated to "eliminate" that same object? Perhaps one can close his eyes and aim? I know one thing for sure - I certainly would not want that type of argument made on my behalf before a judge. That would be like saying, "Sure, I drove my car into a crowd of people where I knew Mr. Smith was standing, but I really wasn't trying to hit Mr. Smith, even though everyone knows I don't like him." Yet you've got other CW bloggers linking to that article in order to support the City's decision. Brilliant.

Perhaps closing one's eyes and aiming is a good analogy. And if that's the approach they take in court, it will probably produce the same results.


"The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a civil war heritage society that was prohibited from flying the Confederate flag despite the fact that other organizations were allowed to fly their flags. In filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the City of Lexington, Virginia, Institute attorneys allege that city officials exhibited hostility toward the Confederate flag and engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination against the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) when they adopted an ordinance limiting use of the flag standards to the display of national, state and city flags. The complaint also alleges that the ordinance violates a 1993 federal court injunction which protects the SCV’s right to display the Confederate flag within the City of Lexington."

More here.

I'll have more to post about this soon. City officials in Lexington have demonstrated, over and over again, their embarassing incompetence when it comes to handling their rich Civil War and historical heritage. This is just the latest example.

6 comments:

Brock Townsend said...

Great and posted.

13thBama said...

Let me fix this for you...

"Sure, I drove my car into a crowd of people where I knew Mr. Smith was standing, but I really wasn't trying to hit Mr. Smith, though eliminating Mr. Smith was the driving force in my decision."

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

13B - yes, much better. Spoken like a true lawyer! If they use logic like that, this should be a slam dunk! ;o) Who knows? Courts are so unpredictable.

Chaps said...

Ready, fire, aim.

mRed said...

On a personal note, my gg grandather, a veteran of the War of 1812, and his son, a veteran of the Civil War (VA-18th, Co E) were originally from Lexington, VA. We had planned a large family reunion in Lexington, but moved it to Cartersville, VA after the disgraceful flag incidence. I had written to various people in Lexington prior to our cancellation including local government officials, the local COC, etc., but received absolutely nothing in return. Lexington missed out on approx. 75-80 people staying there for 5 days. Their disrespect has a cost.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Lexington is governed by a bunch of snobbish elites. It's been like that for a number of years. Their short-sightedness when it comes to this type of thing has cost local residents literally millions in tax revenue. Their juvenile attitude toward the Museum of the Confederacy is another example. Just check out what the MOC has spent in Appomattox.