I think some here are being a little uncharitable when reading Haywood's responses. Nowhere was he equivocating atheism and racism. He clearly doesn't have an issue with an atheist themed vanity plate by virtue of the fact that one of his two options is to allow any combination of characters.
I think his argument that the state has an interest in preventing vandalism based on a state sponsored display, although a reasonable proposition, is misplaced based on the fact that states are on record stating that the censorship is based on decency, good taste and the desire not to offend. At any rate, construing Haywood's argument to mean he is worried about the physical integrity of the plate itself or that he claims atheism incites violence or unrest is a little bizarre.
I'll be interested to see how this case unfolds. I hope the courts take the opportunity to weigh in on the nuanced first amendment issue at stake and not simply rule on the religious discrimination angle.
I think his argument that the state has an interest in preventing vandalism based on a state sponsored display, although a reasonable proposition, is misplaced based on the fact that states are on record stating that the censorship is based on decency, good taste and the desire not to offend. At any rate, construing Haywood's argument to mean he is worried about the physical integrity of the plate itself or that he claims atheism incites violence or unrest is a little bizarre.
I'll be interested to see how this case unfolds. I hope the courts take the opportunity to weigh in on the nuanced first amendment issue at stake and not simply rule on the religious discrimination angle.
