Supreme Court ruling, and as a non-lawyer, I am interpreting this to mean the FSM is getting the shaft and there will not be statues of his noodly appendages in a public square near you any time soon:
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday, in one of the most closely watched free speech decisions in years, that a tiny religious sect could not force a Utah city to let it erect a monument to its faith in a public park.
The fact that there is already a Ten Commandments monument in the park in Pleasant Grove City does not mean that city officials must also allow the religious group called Summum to place a monument there to the Seven Aphorisms of its faith, the justices ruled.
Anyone with legal training want to read the ruling and decipher that for us rubes?
Also, ACTIVIST JUDGES!