As to the prayer breakfasts, I suppose someone could make an argument that these are de facto government events and somehow implicate the first amendment as a result. I think that would be an enormously difficult argument to make and win. I think the public officials’ own free exercise rights and rights of free association would trump any establishment law concerns. But if multiple public officials attend and confer on public policy matters during such gatherings (something unlikely to occur in Florida given our sunshine laws) the argument would have at least a little weight.

To the extent that private organizations like chambers or prayer meeting sponsors have employees who have to participate in the meetings, there might be a discrimination or harassment issue with respect to those employees, but that has nothing to do with the First Amendment – it would be something to take up under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination based on religion – a whole different ball of wax.

Rod, I genuinely appreciate you coming to my defense and your comments. Truly, thank you. But it’s all good. Let’s just shake hands and move on.

If anyone has anything interesting or insightful to say (or questions) about the actual legal cases I mentioned in this post, or incorporation doctrine, or the 14th amendment, or “substantive due process,” or relevant links, I’d love it if the thread continued in that direction rather than this one.

EDIT: I wrote this before I saw Ms. Wach’s latest post. Let me add this: I don’t think ANYONE owes ANYONE an apology at this point. Let’s move on.

Since you know nothing about me, I think YOU owe me an apology. When and where did I dismiss anyone’s motives as superficial?

Ms. Wachs, are you really so shallow that you resort to comments that on their face look like nothing but projection? And this after you misread the point of Kemp’s blog? I am an atheist and know very well what it’s like living in Polk county with a minority view. Hopefully, we all want fairness and equality, and being subjected to someone at civil meetings spouting off their salvation fantasies makes me cringe at the nonsense of it. Unless life or limb was at stake, however, this doesn’t excuse letting your passion essentially dismiss another’s motives as superficial. At this point, I think you owe Kemp another apology. You might get in the habit of debating bad ideas rather than insulting people.

Obviously, we (the organization) do believe the Commission is in violation by the way they practice their invocations. They are purely christian throughout the recent history that I can find. Inviting one rabbi to perform an invocation before them does not make them an inclusive body. They actually revoked the invocation to a muslim imam after objections were raised that it was inappropriate in this day and age.

In light of the Joyner case, Lakeland has a problem; but aside from that, it is simply an issue of equality and fairness. We are trying to change the conversation and attitude of the country just as was done during the 1960s with the civil rights movement. We are “coming out of the closet” so to speak.

First of all, I don’t know that what the Lakeland City Commission is doing is unconstitutional. My focus is on the school board. As detailed in the Ledger article, the school board’s practices are uniquely sectarian and therefore on shakier legal ground than other local government bodies. I will get into this in more detail in part II.

Second of all, my goal is for all sides of the debate on legislative prayer in Polk County to understand the law better so the discussion will take place on a higher level. I’m not here to push anyone’s agenda (I do that all day at work). If both your camp and the other side(s) see me as a reliable source of information about existing law and its application, then I have succeeded in my goal in this space.