DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Woman Sues After '8THEIST' Plate Denied, 'BAPTIST' Approved

Woman Sues After '8THEIST' Plate Denied, 'BAPTIST' Approved

A woman filed a federal lawsuit alleging that her First Amendment rights were violated when she was denied a license plate that would proclaim her atheist views in New Jersey, though a plate reading "BAPTIST" was approved.

According to the suit, Shannon Morgan of Leesberg, N.J., said she tried to register online with the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission for a vanity license plate reading "8THEIST," but was told that the "requested plate text is considered objectionable."

Morgan then tested the system to see if she could register a license plate that read "BAPTIST" and found that it was permitted and she could order the license plate if she wished.

When Morgan attempted to follow up in person with the Motor Vehicle Commission about why her request was denied, she said she was never given a clear answer.

The suit alleges that by denying Morgan's request, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission is infringing on her First Amendment rights.

The suit also alleges that another resident, David Silverman, president of American Atheists, was unable to get a vanity license plate reading "ATHE1ST" until local media started to report the story.

Morgan is being helped and represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a Washington, D.C.-based religious liberty watchdog group.

"The New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission's actions are mean-spirited and derogatory," as well as "unconstitutional," Americans United said in a statement.

"The government should not be in the business of rejecting plates on the grounds of religion or non-religion," Americans United Legal Director Ayesha Khan told ABC News. "That's a classic speech violation."

Khan said the Motor Vehicle Commission has "stonewalled" her client since the incident, refusing to engage with her in any way. They hope this lawsuit will help push the department to modify its regulations and Internet protocols that cause automatic rejections of plates it deems offensive.

Attempts to reach the MVC were not immediately successful.

According to the South Jersey Times, Sandy Grossman, a spokeswoman for the MVC, said that each license plate request was reviewed by commission officials.

"We review every request personally … and we review them for anything that's offensive or objectionable," Grossman told the South Jersey Times.

Grossman also told the Times atheist-themed license plates have been issued before.

"We have no objection and continue to issue plates with these types of configurations," Grossman reportedly told the Times.

I'm not big into lawsuits, nor am I an atheist by any stretch, but I do think the lady should be allowed to have that as her plate. And the US Government cannot deny her that.

This stuff is exactly why Indiana doesnt allow vanity plates anymore...

My guess is the rules for the reviewers are not well-defined, and rather than being mean-spirited, the reviewers lack training or a clear set of rules.

is that why my "cops lol" plate got denied?

Sadly being Atheist doesn't come with religious protections; just another form of discrimination. If she wants it on her car that bad there are tons of bumper stickers.

I do think it's funny how the government will protect your right to believe and worship any god you want, but offers no protections to those who don't believe.

Atheism doesn't come with religious protections because many Atheist activists don't want Atheism to fall under the same Constitutional limits they try to shove down the throats of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. (and others) Imagine if the concept of "no God" could not be taught in schools ..... or if removing all religious ceremonial items on holidays with a major religious importance could not be so easily done, because that would also be a religious expression?

I believe that Atheism is a religious expression, and that it absolutely should have the same protections, responsibilities, and limits as other religious expressions.

I'm still wondering how Christianity is under attack.

Maybe she should just shoot for, TITH2ME.

reminds me of one of my favorite Seinfeld's ... the ASSMAN license plate

probably because to have religious protections, you have to be a religion.

"Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion." - http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?

What protections are they lacking?

Give the woman the license plate, not sure what the big deal is..

They do keep saying that, don't they.

The reason why is because if they were recognized as a religion, then they would receive the same treatment they try to shove down everyone else's throats.

sooo...do you think she should've been allowed the plate or not?

I'm not sure what's being shoved down throats.

I do know there's a lot of complaints of being victimized when someone happens to point out that some random religious function is unconstitutional.

Talk about getting stuffed down the throat!

You get accused of every evil thing short of....well, there's nothing evil you DON'T get accused of.

Atheism is the absence of religion. Hence it's not a religion. I'm not sure why this needs to have a discussion.

Darkness is the absence of light. Hence darkness is not light.

I wonder if she was denied because that plate was already taken. They don't give the reason. She certainly has the right to that tag if its available.

Razor. I know we had our difference. And I don't agree with you on a lot of things.

But you're consistent with your ideology, and you're don't have double standards.

Just wanted to say that bro. Huge props man.

I see nothing wrong with the plate itself. If she wants to identify herself as an atheist, let her. It's not some foul or offensive word.

I tried to figure out if there was some other foul or offensive combination of letters in the word as spelled, and can't find one.

I have seen a lot of words/phrases denied by the state of Ohio, and can't figure out why on most of those either. I saw a list online at one time, and many were obvious, but most took a whole lot of imagination to make an offensive word or phrase.

No, Atheism is a belief system based only he absence of God. It is not, necessarily, the absence of a religion itself.

Atheism, in a latin root exercise, means lack of belief.

When 2 people meet in court, in today's world, one with a religious expression, and the other who objects based on their "religious freedom" .... (which has to be a religious expression) many courts side with them, and the religious person loses. It is a tilted scale, that all too often favors the Atheist position over any religion.

Here is what the 1st Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So, if the Atheist is using this clause to prohibit religious expression by others, such as a Christmas display, then it must be under one of these areas:

Is it Congress "establishing a religion? No.

Is it "prohibiting the free expression thereof"? Well, not for the Atheist, who is free to express themselves as they choose, but without anything to display, what could they display? So, the courts often do prohibit the free expression of religion by siding with Atheists in court cases.

The rest don't apply.

There are so many examples that it is ridiculous. Atheists got the Navy to remove Bibles from their Navy lodges because it somehow alienates non-Christian guests. Really? Close the freakin' drawer if you don't want to see it.

That is the kind of stuff that really irritates Christians. Many times organizations cave in at just the threat of legal action. Atheists get to set the "public moral agenda", because everyone caves into them for fear of having to go to court. Their freedom of religious expression wins out over others freedom of religious expression.

I truly doubt that this is what the founders had in mind.

Thanks mate, I appreciate that. I have my views and I don't shy away from them but I also believe everyone has the right to express themselves too. I'm perfectly fine with people not agreeing with me. I enjoy a good argument =)

Perhaps they just didn't believe she could fit eight theists in a car?

Put them on the head of a needle?

I understand the Christian mission is to establish their symbols and policies where ever possible without regard to others, but if the court decides the constitution is violated by doing this then there's really no basis to the argument that Christians be allowed access to every facet of our lives.

This by no means equals Christians are victims of repression at all.

Here's the thing though .....

I can display a painting of a naked woman with a cross, painted in feces, and that is fine ...... but put up a Christmas display ...... and that violates the Constitution.

There are so many examples of where one group of people almost automatically gets their way. Atheists have the right to be offended by something without automatically having the right to have it removed. However, they threaten to sue anyone and everyone, and many they threaten don't have the money to defend themselves legally. so they ruin things for other people, just because they can.

Exactly what I'm saying. Your right to believe in God is protected. My right to NOT believe in God is not protected.

I agree w/you about giving her the plate. On the other hand, I can't believe she filed a federal law suit over this. It's like some people are looking for trouble and attention.

Sheesh........it is a freaking license plate. What is the big deal either way?

principles.

something we use to value in this country.

I think if you check it out you'll find that a naked woman with a cross, painted in feces is may only be acceptable in an art museum due to "laws". I don't know for sure because I've never seen one or even heard of any religion that uses this image as an icon.

I admit naked lady statues are everywhere including the statue of Lady Justice that John Ashcroft covered - censored - because Lady Justice's image is offensive to.....I don't know.....Christians?

A Christmas display can be put up in nearly every inch of this country, with the exception of areas publicly owned, due to laws.

Measure the difference in area and tell me again how Christianity is oppressed.

christianity isn't oppressed.

they only throw out the oppressed word when they don't get what they want.

if every inch of this country isn't covered in a bible and cross, they feel oppressed.

How is your right to NOT believe being infringed? No one is forcing you to go to church, or put up religious decorations on your house.

I agree that no one is literally "forcing" anybody, however, the atheists argument has been that until recently the Christian rule was either participate or sit quiet.

When atheist pointed out that prayer in public school was in essence a state supported religious activity atheists were accused of attacking Christianity.

When atheists pointed out that Nativity scenes in front of Town Hall was in essence a state supported religious statement they were accused of attacking Christianity.

When Fox started the bogus "Attack on Christmas" campaign the reason given was an anti-Christian attack.

None of these examples are "forcing" atheists to participate in Christian activities, but the response from Christians that when atheists are claiming their rights, what they are actually doing is "attacking" Christianity, that is understood as an attempt to infringe on the the rights atheists.

Prayer in School - I Agree, should not be a school required event, but at the same time, praying by students in between classes should not be discouraged or punishable either.

Nativity Scene - I don't care either way.

Yea, I don't know to what degree praying between classes is denied. I know prayer "groups" on school property was an issue.

I also know that in spite of the myth that prayer is not allowed, anyone is allowed to pray in school.

I'm pretty the constitution comes in when it's teacher lead or prayer groups/clubs are allowed to meet on school grounds.

It would be interesting to find out if religious discussion groups would meet constitutional guidelines. I don't see why they wouldn't.

Sorry I got interrupted mid-reply before

Nativity scenes - I don't care either way. My celebrations for the holidays are mine. Whether businesses choose to participate should be up to the business owners, as far as government goes, it should give equal opportunity to other religions during their recognized holidays, or none at all.


"I'm pretty the constitution comes in when it's teacher lead or prayer groups/clubs are allowed to meet on school grounds."

They can lead these groups, but they must be outside school hours/activities, and must not be mandatory for students or show any bias toward students who do or do not attend.

Says who? For a publicly funded display...yeah, that will catch some flak. On your own yard? Is that ever an issue?

Private organizations using school buildings, as other private organizations do .. being told that they cannot pray ...... private organizations putting up a nativity scene, only to be told that it has to come down ...... there are innumerable examples over the past 15 years .....

If you wish to go look, you will find.

Can you post some examples?

Don't you think if their rights were being violated they should have sought legal help?

Maybe they can't because the constitution says they're wrong and if it's our nation's constitution that rules this are you suggesting that Christians should be given special privilege to violate it?