How does the ACLU know who to sue?

[fj1200]

Washington state and the ACLU sue florist for refusing to sell flowers for gay wedding because of Christian beliefs (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/flower-shop-sued-shunning-gay-wedding-article-1.1321259)


The American Civil Liberties Union joined the state of Washington by filing its own lawsuit on Thursday against Arlene’s Flowers and its proprietor, Barronelle Stutzman, over the woman’s refusal to sell flowers for a same-sex wedding.

...

The ACLU then filed a civil suit after Stutzman ignored its demand that she apologize to the couple, donate $5,000 to a youth center affiliated with the gay community, and agree to sell flowers regardless of the sexual orientation of her customers.

1. Why wouldn't they be concerned about the religious rights of the retailer?
2. The couple already has state protections so why does the ACLU need to pile on?

*rhetorical questions

[tailfins]

The ACLU attorney gets awarded fees if they win. Follow the money.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Doesn't a 3rd party like the ACLU have to file suit on someone's behalf? Specifically, someone directly involved/affected in the specific instance of alleged offense?

[aboutime]

Doesn't a 3rd party like the ACLU have to file suit on someone's behalf? Specifically, someone directly involved/affected in the specific instance of alleged offense?


Actually. If anyone cares to check. The ACLU get's paid whether they WIN, or LOSE.

That's why so many people have so little time for Lawyers. They are a WIN-WIN profession, and WE THE PEOPLE are paying them.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=633433#post633433)
Doesn't a 3rd party like the ACLU have to file suit on someone's behalf? Specifically, someone directly involved/affected in the specific instance of alleged offense?


Actually. If anyone cares to check. The ACLU get's paid whether they WIN, or LOSE.

That's why so many people have so little time for Lawyers. They are a WIN-WIN profession, and WE THE PEOPLE are paying them.

I wasn't talking about monetary gain. I was simply referring to their legal standing to initiate a suit.

[hjmick]

The ACLU.

I have mixed emotions about the ACLU. I don't always agree with whom the take a stand, but I do think they mean well. For the most part.

[aboutime]

I wasn't talking about monetary gain. I was simply referring to their legal standing to initiate a suit.


I understand now. I do believe they determine WHICH cases they think might be a threat to the constitution in any way. So, the legal standing. As I see it. Comes from an ACLU decision within the organization, as to whether they feel it is justified to defend, or help anyone threatened.

[logroller]

I believe their decisions are also based on which cases garner them more fundraising capital, not merely litigated awards. In the case of the OP, religious freedom funding is likely slim pickings of late due to ACA challenges. Gay rights in the other hand...Take CA's prop 8, $83 million on that contest alone.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=633519#post633519)
I wasn't talking about monetary gain. I was simply referring to their legal standing to initiate a suit.



I understand now. I do believe they determine WHICH cases they think might be a threat to the constitution in any way. So, the legal standing. As I see it. Comes from an ACLU decision within the organization, as to whether they feel it is justified to defend, or help anyone threatened.

Sorry, maybe I'm being obtuse here. The gay couple is not involved, as far as I've read, in the suit for either the state or the ACLU. I understand the states legal standing... upholding a law. But what is the ACLU's standing? They are just concerned someone did something wrong, and they are suing? That would mean I could sue as well, and so could you.

I thought to bring suit against someone, you had to have a direct connection... representing an involved party... have been wronged by the party being sued... suffered an actual loss of some kind... etc. Just 'standing up for the constitution' doesn't seem to me to meet that criteria.

[logroller]

Sorry, maybe I'm being obtuse here. The gay couple is not involved, as far as I've read, in the suit for either the state or the ACLU. I understand the states legal standing... upholding a law. But what is the ACLU's standing? They are just concerned someone did something wrong, and they are suing? That would mean I could sue as well, and so could you.

I thought to bring suit against someone, you had to have a direct connection... representing an involved party... have been wronged by the party being sued... suffered an actual loss of some kind... etc. Just 'standing up for the constitution' doesn't seem to me to meet that criteria.
There are exceptions that allow third party standing; primarily dealing with first amendment rights being abridged through statutory laws that are seemingly inocuous, but have a derogatory effects. See: overbreadth-- where a third party, though not directly involved, can demonstrate that were an action to go unchallenged it would have a "chilling effect" upon another's propensity to seek redress-- standing may be granted to third parties. Another exception is where the state decides not to defend a statute and in many a class action lawsuit. Though the latter likely falls under overbreadth. Hope that helps.

[logroller]

Sorry, maybe I'm being obtuse here. The gay couple is not involved, as far as I've read, in the suit for either the state or the ACLU. I understand the states legal standing... upholding a law. But what is the ACLU's standing? They are just concerned someone did something wrong, and they are suing? That would mean I could sue as well, and so could you.

I thought to bring suit against someone, you had to have a direct connection... representing an involved party... have been wronged by the party being sued... suffered an actual loss of some kind... etc. Just 'standing up for the constitution' doesn't seem to me to meet that criteria.
I just thought of an example: suppose you were in a dispute with your HOA regarding a political sticker on your car. As a result, you decided to move and the HOA decided that any fines would be reimbursed. One element of standing is that the court is able to offer redress, to right the wrong; as in, you would be able to have your sticker on your car and live in the neighborhood. but since you have moved, and the fines were eliminated, you cannot be offered no such redress. Technically you don't have standing, but you could still challenge that rule of the contract on grounds that a real threat to first amendment rights exists. Not sayin you'd win mind you, merely that there are grounds for your standing to sue.

[aboutime]

Sorry, maybe I'm being obtuse here. The gay couple is not involved, as far as I've read, in the suit for either the state or the ACLU. I understand the states legal standing... upholding a law. But what is the ACLU's standing? They are just concerned someone did something wrong, and they are suing? That would mean I could sue as well, and so could you.

I thought to bring suit against someone, you had to have a direct connection... representing an involved party... have been wronged by the party being sued... suffered an actual loss of some kind... etc. Just 'standing up for the constitution' doesn't seem to me to meet that criteria.


Marcus. I can't disagree with you on any of that. I am not, and have never claimed to be a good source for Legal Decisions, or lawsuits. Wish I knew more. But the best I am able to do is offer what I do know, and until I learn more. Go with that.
Whatever the criteria is. I'm almost certain. The lawyers at the ACLU will decide whether it is worth their efforts if the Constitutional aspects are seemingly threatened, or being ignored. Other than that. I would be a hypocrite, and only be able to offer my opinion.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I just thought of an example: suppose you were in a dispute with your HOA regarding a political sticker on your car. As a result, you decided to move and the HOA decided that any fines would be reimbursed. One element of standing is that the court is able to offer redress, to right the wrong; as in, you would be able to have your sticker on your car and live in the neighborhood. but since you have moved, and the fines were eliminated, you cannot be offered no such redress. Technically you don't have standing, but you could still challenge that rule of the contract on grounds that a real threat to first amendment rights exists. Not sayin you'd win mind you, merely that there are grounds for your standing to sue.

While I understand your example is 'hypothetical', it is really not possible for an HOA to make such a rule, as the car is not part of the house or grounds. In fact, I happen to sport a Romney sticker. Now, if you'd mentioned political yard signs, then you'd have an example, as my HOA does have a rule against them. People put them up, get letters, and remove them... continually, during election cycles.

[Marcus Aurelius]

There are exceptions that allow third party standing; primarily dealing with first amendment rights being abridged through statutory laws that are seemingly inocuous, but have a derogatory effects. See: overbreadth-- where a third party, though not directly involved, can demonstrate that were an action to go unchallenged it would have a "chilling effect" upon another's propensity to seek redress-- standing may be granted to third parties. Another exception is where the state decides not to defend a statute and in many a class action lawsuit. Though the latter likely falls under overbreadth. Hope that helps.

I would think that a judge would have to rule standing though, correct? As in, if a judge decided there was no standing, out goes the suit.

[fj1200]

I believe their decisions are also based on which cases garner them more fundraising capital, not merely litigated awards. In the case of the OP, religious freedom funding is likely slim pickings of late due to ACA challenges. Gay rights in the other hand...Take CA's prop 8, $83 million on that contest alone.

But those on whose benefit they are suing have already won their state mandated equality. It's probably like Hillary running for president, every Dem needs to be on the gay marriage bandwagon to raise some dollars.

[logroller]

I would think that a judge would have to rule standing though, correct? As in, if a judge decided there was no standing, out goes the suit.
Of course. In fact, the burden is upon the third party to justify standing to the court.

[logroller]

While I understand your example is 'hypothetical', it is really not possible for an HOA to make such a rule, as the car is not part of the house or grounds. In fact, I happen to sport a Romney sticker. Now, if you'd mentioned political yard signs, then you'd have an example, as my HOA does have a rule against them. People put them up, get letters, and remove them... continually, during election cycles.
Of course its possible. Perhaps not probable, but it is possible. I think you underestimate the fascists....er I mean hoa. Seriously though, there are actual laws, let alone rules that are blatantly unconstitutional yet, by virtue of non-enforcement, continue to stand... no harm, no foul....no standing to sue.

[Robert A Whit]

Washington florist faces second lawsuit for refusing service for gay ... (http://www.christianpost.com/news/washington-florist-faces-second-lawsuit-for-refusing-service-for-gay-wedding-94342/)<cite>www.christianpost.com/.../washington-florist-faces-second-lawsuit-for-re...</cite>
4 days ago – The ACLU is representing the male couple who were denied service by Stutzman in March, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed of Kennewick.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Washington florist faces second lawsuit for refusing service for gay ... (http://www.christianpost.com/news/washington-florist-faces-second-lawsuit-for-refusing-service-for-gay-wedding-94342/)

<cite>www.christianpost.com/.../washington-florist-faces-second-lawsuit-for-re...</cite>
4 days ago – The ACLU is representing the male couple who were denied service by Stutzman in March, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed of Kennewick.

you DO realize you just proved my point... right?

[Robert A Whit]

you DO realize you just proved my point... right?

Does that bother you? At least somebody proved it and I guess I was just the lucky guy.