The Defense Logistics Agency has ended its appeal of a case in which an employee was barred from posting a “religious” message on an employee bulletin board.  (See the ADF article.)  (The case was decided in District Court in March in favor of the employee.)  The case involved an employee who posted a message stating that supporting the Combined Federal Campaign could result in support of abortion and homosexuality, among other things.  The bulletin board had a policy that allowed virtually all employee postings except those that “reflected a religious preference.”

The decision, which can be read in PDF here, is interesting in that it highlights some of the “solutions” that church/state separationists offer in response to religion in public.

For example, just because “religious speech” occurs on government property by government employees does not make it unConstitutional.

The fact that the flyer was posted on government property was not significant…When the Government…designates a place or a means of communication as a public forum speakers cannot be excluded without a compelling government interest.

And further,

Though the bulletin board was on government property and was maintained by the government, because the government opened it to employee communications, employee speech on it was not Government speech. (para)

In another, banning all religions in order to prevent the appearance of favoring one violates the Constitution.

Fundamentally, the Supreme Court has determined that a regulation which excludes all religions, while advancing or permitting advocacy of non-religious associations, violates the First Amendment. (Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches and Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia).  “The…assertion that no viewpoint discrimination occurs because [they] discriminate against an entire class of viewpoints reflects an insupportable assumption that all debate is bipolar and that antireligious speech is the only response to religious speech.” (Rosenberger)

It is also worth noting that the employee was not a military member, and the board was an open forum.  It is possible that the ruling would apply slightly differently to military members because of the fundamentals of “good order and discipline” and the military structure.  Still, the principles remain true.  A military member’s speech is not unequivocally government speech, government property is not “sacredly secular” ground, and discriminating against all religions is just as unConstitutional as discriminating against (or establishing) one.

While many worry about church/state “entanglement” or “establishment,” this ruling points out that discrimination because of religion is just as significant an issue–and just as unConstitutional.