Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, June 20, 1995 TAG: 9506210045
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
The justices said Massachusetts courts violated the parade sponsor's rights when they invoked the state's public accommodations law to force inclusion of the homosexual group in 1992 and 1993.
``The issue is whether Massachusetts may require private citizens who organize a parade to include among the marchers a group imparting a message the organizers do not wish to convey,'' Justice David Souter wrote. ``We hold that such a mandate violates the First Amendment.''
Court orders forced the sponsors to allow members of the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston to march in the parade in 1992 and 1993. In 1994, sponsors canceled the parade rather than allow the gay group to participate.
This year, the sponsoring South Boston Allied War Veterans Council adopted new standards - participation was by invitation only and the parade would commemorate the role of traditional families in Irish history.
All justices agreed the 1995 parade was an expressive activity protected by associational and free-speech rights - meaning the veterans group legally could exclude the gay group.
On another matter Monday, the court limited prisoners' right to have hearings before they lose privileges or are disciplined for misconduct. Ruling 5-4, the court threw out a Hawaii inmate's claim that he was improperly placed in isolation after cursing at a guard during a strip search.
Some state prison regulations give prisoners a ``liberty interest'' that entitles them to a hearing before they can be disciplined or lose privileges, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court. ``But these interests will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which ... imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life,'' Rehnquist wrote.
A Little Rock couple who want to display millions of holiday lights as part of their Christmas celebration lost a Supreme Court appeal Monday.
The court's action was a victory for Jennings and Mitzi Osborne's neighbors, who take a dim view of the bright lights and the crowds they attracted.
The neighbors said the massive display had attracted so much traffic that it kept them prisoners in their home. They also complained about sightseers who left garbage scattered throughout the neighborhood.
The court acted in two religion-connected cases Monday. The justices turned down, without comment, a constitutional challenge to a Florida law that punishes vandalism against places of worship more severely than vandalism of other properties.
In the other case, the court rejected an appeal by a Tampa, Fla., police officer who resigned after refusing to work on his religion's sabbath. Aston Beadle had argued that the Police Department did not do enough to accommodate his religious practices as a Seventh-day Adventist who cannot work from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday.
by CNB