Comments about ‘ACLU expresses concerns about possible sale of Manti street to Mormon Church’

If the point of selling the property is to stop the demonstrations then I have a problem with it.

@ Doctor:

Why? If the city wants to sell it and the Church wants to buy it, why does the motive matter? If the ACLU claims the right to protest under the Constitution, the Church can claim the right to own and operate private property the same as an individual can do with his or her own home. Both parties have those rights.

The right to protest does not and should not trump the right to own private property. If the ACLU is so concerned about its right to protest at that particular location, perhaps they should purchase the land themselves.

While I agree that 1st Amendment rights are crucial to our freedom the ACLU has made another error in this situation. Not one person in Manti is denying anyone the right to assemble and protest. The ability to gather in protest is not contingent on this dead end property’s availability. There are plenty of places suitable for assembly. The real issue is this piece of ground is in close proximity to the Manti Temple. Herein lays the real issue for the ACLU and it is only an issue (born out of arrogance and pride) veiled in concern for the 1st Amendment. The Utah chapter of the ACLU lost the Main Street Plaza issue and they need a win. Note to the ACLU. Those in rural America do not take kindly to being told how business will be conducted in their towns. These good, honest, hardworking people find special interest intrusion distasteful and poisonous to community spirit. Tread carefully…

Amen Resolute Voice! According to the ACLU, those protesters have every right to run down the Mormon religion, and call us all sorts of names and defame our temple worship. Sacred things get trampled under the feet of these so called sidewalk preachers who rant and rave against our beliefs. I firmly believe in the first amendment, which states freedom of speech, but it also states that it is wrong to impede on the free exercise of religion. Why doesn't the ACLU get after the protesters who say that we have no right to practice our religion? Doesn't this impede on our rights to freedom of religion? Last I checked, the Bill of Rights has not been changed about this (at least, so far).

Oh for Pete's sake. Manti is an itty bitty town in the middle of nowhere. I know, I've been through it (was careful not to blink), and my in-laws now live near there. If not for the pioneer era temple and the annual pageant, most other Utahns would never have heard of it nor be able to place it on a map, let alone anybody outside of Utah. It's probably 90% Mormon - most of those little towns in Central Utah are.

If the city wants to sell a useless dead-end block of road, and the Church wants to buy it, and nobody who actually lives there cares - why on earth does the ACLU have to stick their nose in it?

The only protest value the property has is in its proximity to the pageant - in other words the ability to actually disrupt the free speech rights of the participants and those who came to see it. They can protest on some public land a block away - and just annoy those people on their way to and from it, instead of during it.

The ACLU is way out of line here. Freedom of speech shouldn't even be an issue.

Simply because someone loses a convenient place to protest doesn't mean their right to free speech has been compromised in any way.

The hatemongers are always free to move their hatemongering to another public sidewalk.

In nearly EVERY case, if you oppose the ACLU, you'll be on the right side of the question at issue.

It's been sad to watch this once-great organization -- one I once belonged to and acted as a court observer for -- slide into pettyness, silliness, and irrelevance.

Of course the City of Manti has the right to sell its property to the Church -- regardless of the motivation of its officials.

If we started down that road of examining officials' personal or political motivation to invalidate an organization's acts, the ACLU would be the first to suffer.

The only relevant question is, "Is it legal?"

All of us, including ACLU officials know it is. For unfathomable personal and political motives, ACLU officials are merely trying to bully and intimidate the City into abandoning a perfectly legal action that benefits both it and the Church.

Sad.

"We have grave concerns..."

GRAVE concerns. oooh!

"As you may be aware, the ACLU of Utah has litigated these issues in the past."

Oh we sure are aware, ACLU, we sure are.

Your case is invalid as well as disingenuous: the primary purpose of the street is not "speech." The street has spent its usefulness as a medium for traffic; the city has a right to sell; the church has a right to buy; and the church then has a right to enjoy some basic property rights.

But you couldn't care less about the CHURCH'S rights, could you, phony and ulterior-motivated ACLU. Yes, we sure found that out on Main Street several years ago, didn't we.

@ Solomon Levi

Great point, I agree. When a group of protesters loses their convenient location or favorite spot to deface what others hold sacred, suddenly it's an issue of freedom of speech. Ridiculous.

The ACLU is treading on thin ice with this issue. I think the only legitimate concern they could have is not whether the CHURCH is trying to curb the protests during pageant week, but whether the CITY is trying to curb the protests. If the city officials are selling the land for the purpose of cracking down on demonstrations of free speech, that might be a legitimate problem. That being said, I hope the Church secures the property. I've been down to the pageant a number of times and I'm so sick of the protesters -- they're rude and crass.

People are right about the ACLU and the ACLU has lost its credibility as freedom fighters, they are owned by criminal elements of society working to defeat the rights of americans. They represent anything but the Americans and the constitution.

As for selling this street to the church, it is clearly to stop access and block citizens. The property and roads belongs to the taxpayers in perpetuity and the city should not sell them to the outside interests. All roads serve a function, allow people to drive across the city in as short a distance as possible.

Downtown SLC has severely handicapped traffic flow downtown just to please the church and limit undesired access around their property. Roads should never be blocked or sold so they can be used as barricades to limit our rights of access. It is wrong for the cities to sell land or roads for the purpose of serving a religion. Roads belong to everyone, not specialized religions. Selling roads to protect religions is a constitutional breach. It disrupts traffic flow, property access, and tax payers rights of access.

Now, before we all get too critical of the ACLU, just think: If it weren't for organizations like the ACLU which act like self-appointed attorneys general, when your rights are threatened, who would go to court for you?

Oh yeah. The REAL attorney general.

Once again the aclu is thinking they know what "the people" want. Wrong again aclu. ( I don't capitalize their name because I don't respect the motives they use )

The ACLU gets it wrong... again. They miss the only opportunity for a real constitutional issue and make an issue out of a non-constitutional issue.

Freedom of speech means just one thing: freedom from government censorship of speech. That is clearly NOT an issue here.

What is an issue here is that a government wants to sell land. The notion of public property is folly. How can everyone have a say in every share of public property? They can't! How can everyone's right to use and say what they want on public property be protected? It can't! But the effort to do so sure generates a lot of headlines.

It seems to me that the ACLU has become one of the greatest defenders of "public" property over the years, a notion that has nothing to do with their supposed client: the Constitution.

The ACLU should announce their strong support of this sale and encourage further sales of so-called public property and assert the profound pro-freedom and thus pro-Constitutional effect this policy would have. It would be a gigantic leap towards freedom, prosperity, and peace among Americans everywhere.

If the ACLU doesn't like it, it must be the right thing to do. This communist organization should have no say in anything that goes on in America.

Serenity, you have a clear lack of understanding for the first amendment. It does allow for speech that others might find offensive. Just look at the people from Westboro Baptist Church who picket pretty much everyone but themselves. No person in their right mind would disagree that what they do is offensive to others, but it is their right.

Freedom of religion means the government will not impede your right to worship in the manner you choose, but it does not shield you from criticism or even offensive speech of others.

We've had similar issues at the Hill Cumorah Pageant in New York (my parents live near there). Originally, all parking was on an empty field across the street from the Hill, and protesters were allowed to gather in cordoned areas on the parking side of the street.

Someone sued, because they were not allowed to protest on the Hill side of the street, and they won because the Church does not control the "right-of-way" along the street. So now there are protesters on both sides of the street.

The Church's solution was to move the parking to another empty field on the Hill side of the street, and route visitors along a walkway far from the street.

I think you can still park on the opposite side of the street, but most folks avoid that.

I expect a lawsuit over this. Someone's going to argue that if you can't make someone listen to your protest your rights must have been trampled.

Maybe I should buy the land, as a private citizen, and put up a corn dog business during the pageant.

The founder of the ACLU stated that his goal was to remove any expression of religion from public life. Unlike many organizations, the ACLU has remained true to their founder's goal.

The American Civil Liberties Union should concern themselves instead with the Civil Rights of all those who travel to Manti to enjoy the Pageant, some such as myself, who travelled great distances.

Why should the participants and spectators be forced to endure the rantings of loud mouthed ignorant bigots "protesting".

The protesters should be arrested for causing a public nuisance and for disturbing the peace.

I found the same ridiculous hoodlums at the Hill Cumorah Pageant, outside the Conference Centre, and to a lessor extent at Nauvoo.

Thousands of street closures and sales occur every year - but the ACLU only gets upset when the LDS Church is involved