Interesting Comment At The Freedom For St Mary Blog

Regarding my comment there and my subsequent post here about William Lancaster, freedomforstmary offers this insight. While I can't really speculate on Mr Lancaster's motives (who would want to?), the commenter's perspective is that the St Mary's dissidents didn't tell Messrs Lancaster and Anastasia the whole story:

More than likely, their clients did not tell them that all the charges were made up, falsities, nor that a valid commitment already existed prior to the commencement of legal actions, a contract by agreement and conduct excluding from the Corporation of St Mary of the Angels those very same “authorities” their clients claimed as their own.

I suspect, though, that Mr Lancaster's response would be that since this matter involves a first-amendment issue, however remote, the court simply can't get involved. My concern about that argument, and Judge Linfield's acceptance of it last year, is where does the first amendment stop? If my sect says I'm a heretic and must be burned at the stake, are the courts allowed to interfere? There's no question that the St Mary's dissidents, backed up by the ACA and assisted by an attorney with a reputation less than stellar, have taken us into a sort of legal twilight zone.