Landmark Events- LOLDoug: The Next Generation

[Howl]

Quote

 We believe we have a right to fair access to the Parks and to proclaim the Lord’s glorious work throughout history on the very ground it happened.

They do absolutely have the right to do that unless they are charging people money.  

Just a cursory google search on religious expression in national parks came up with this article from the LATimes: 

Quote

August 09, 2010 National parks can't require permits for free speech, court rules

WASHINGTON — — Religious missionaries and political activists will have more freedom to speak out in Yosemite, Yellowstone and other national parks under an appellate court ruling.

The decision, released Friday, struck down a longstanding National Park Service requirement that activists obtain permits before they demonstrate, distribute brochures or engage in other "expressive" activities in parks.

"These regulations penalize a substantial amount of speech that does not impinge on the government's interests," wrote Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The decision by a three-judge appellate panel specifically involved Mt. Rushmore National Park in South Dakota, where Michael Boardley and others were initially blocked in 2007 from distributing material praising Jesus Christ and the Gospel.

But because Boardley persuaded the panel that the park service's speech permit requirement violated the 1st Amendment, the decision opens doors wider at all 391 units of the national park system.

This is related to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The legal nitty gritty is here:  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1534174.html

[CTRLZero]

Interesting reading.  Thanks for the additional information and links.  I wonder what Landmark Events means when they refer to "while needing a 1st Amendment permit at another..."  

My guess is that, in general, permits are needed to schedule and accommodate large groups so the parks are appropriately staffed and conditions are not too crowded.  As an example in my neck of the woods:   in some popular natural areas, hiking permits are issued on a first come, first served, basis to avoid crowds trampling fragile flora, etc., so it's not too surprising that each national park or facility might have its own peculiar rules. 

It seems like this court case would have been avoided by contacting the specific park before Landmark Events rolled up with its bus(es).  It does appear to be a misunderstanding rather than a denial of rights, however.

 

[hoipolloi]

3 hours ago, CTRLZero said:

It does appear to be a misunderstanding rather than a denial of rights, however.

The arrogant twits at Landmark Events didn't "misunderstand" anything.

They thought they could game the system by running a commercial activity on Federal lands without appropriate permits and then cry "Persecution! Religion! 1st Amendment" when they were caught.

They're a bunch of fucking liars and I hope they get nailed in court, including attorneys' fees.