Justices Seem Skeptical of Boston's Refusal to Fly Christian Flag

 The Supreme Court seems inclined to require the City of Boston to fly a Christian flag in front of City Hall because it has allowed other groups to temporarily fly flags on the City's flagpole symbolizing their organizations. (1/19, A18) The justices appear to subscribe to the notion that this is a freedom of speech rather than an establishment of religion issue under the First Amendment.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett would allow a city to "get behind" an idea of which it approves and prohibit those it abhors; yes to the cross, no to a swastika. 

That analysis is simply wrong. Yes, a government should be required to allow equally the use of its facilities to express a variety of ideas, even those that are controversial, and be permitted to bar such use by patently undemocratic hate groups. That comes within the free speech provisions of the First Amendment.

But, when it comes to religious symbolism, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is implicated. A government is not permitted to take any action which smacks of endorsing, or "getting behind" a particular or, indeed, any religion. That's what separation of Church and State was intended to prevent.