In the complaint, the ALCU also suggests that even if the sale was valid, the Church of Jesus Christ must protect anyone’s First Amendment rights on their private property. Their reasoning is that the Church has been delegated police authority on the property, and is therefore subject to government rules.

The complaint is ludicrous.

• First: I find it difficult to believe that the court prohibited Salt Lake from selling land to the Church of Jesus Christ. If someone owns land, the ability to sell it is implicit. The argument that the Church pressured the city council members who are church members to sell the land is daft. Just because the council members are LDS doesn’t mean that they will bend before the church’s will. In their position they are well aware of their responsibilities to do the best thing for the city.
• Second: If First Amendment rights were guaranteed “regardless of the formalities of title to the property”, (Utah Gospel Mission v. SLC Corp ¶3) then there is nothing preventing me from standing on the ACLU’s front yard and protesting their involvement for the next three weeks. (I do want to go home for Christmas.) Somehow, I think they would disagree.
• Finally: If having police authority over a property meant that the owner was subject to First Amendment restrictions on that property, then every shopping mall, private college (including BYU and the LDS Business College), and business with a security guard would not be able to restrict speech on their property. In fact, I don’t know this for sure, but BYU Police are an official police force, I don’t think Church Security is. The ability of BYU to restrict speech on its campus is unquestioned

The ACLU is now involved in the case just for the sake of argument. They submit their purpose as fighting against “government oppression and the tyranny of the majority”, but in this instance they are attempting to block the sale of land from the government to a private entity. It feels to me that they are using the legal system to oppress a large religious institution in favor of several smaller ones. In their high profile cases, they simply look for a chance to oppose a large public entity, whether their cause is right or not. While I am not a fan of the ACLU, I understand that what they accomplish is important and occasionally necessary. I think they are an excellent resource for people who are unfairly discriminated against, but in many instances, including this one, they go too far.

The ACLU, by becoming involved in this issue, has made it clear that they would rather support protesters’ irreverent displays, actions, and chants than peaceful worship on the Main Street Plaza. Before they begin filing lawsuits, they may want to consider the results of their plaintiffs’ actions. I know that if I were subject to their harassment I would not be able to maintain the peaceful state of mind I seek as a part of my personal religious activities, and I submit that very few people could. The Church of Jesus Christ probably felt it was their duty to restrict speech on the Plaza to protect their members’ worship. Or, stated another way, if the plaintiffs feel it is their religious duty to disturb my religious observances on the Plaza, why shouldn’t the Church be able to protect me by stopping protesters?