DiLoreto

Respondents acted properly even if the posting of appellant’s sign would not have violated the establishment clause. The baseball field was not a public forum for religious proselytizing. The school was not required to expend funds litigating the issue against whoever might choose to sue.

While I concur in the result, I do not agree with part II of Justice Nott’s opinion holding that appellant’s proposed paid advertisement containing the Ten Commandments contravenes the establishment clause of article I, section 4 of the California Constitution. The opinion relies on Stone v. Graham (1980) 449 U.S. 39 [ 101 S.Ct. 192 , 66 L.Ed.2d 199 ] (Stone), in which the United States Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of each public classroom in the state.

Stone applied the three-part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 403 U.S. 602 [ 91 S.Ct. 2105 , 29 L.Ed.2d 745 ] (Lemon) for determining whether a challenged state statute is permissible under the establishment clause of the United States Constitution: “ ‘First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion . . . ; finally the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” ’ ” (Stone v. Graham, supra, 449 U.S. at p. 40 [ 101 S.Ct. at p. 193 ], citing Lemon). I believe that all three parts of the Lemon test have been met…

NOTT, Acting P.J.

Appellant Edward DiLoreto appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents Board of Education of the Downey Unified School District, Edward Sussman, Betty Ferraro, and Margo Hoffer. Amicus curiae, the National Legal Foundation, supports DiLoretto's appeal of the judgment. We affirm.

We are asked to determine whether a public school's rejection of a sign featuring the Ten Commandments which was submitted by a private party in response to a fund-raising solicitation for commercial advertisements to be posted on the school's baseball field, violates that individual's right to free speech under article I, section 2 of the Constitution. In reaching our decision, we must decide whether establishment clause considerations embodied in article I, section 4 of the California Constitution outweigh the individual's free speech rights.

While appellant's intention of spreading words of morality and ethics is laudable, religious tenets set forth in the Ten Commandments are inextricably tied to his sign, and since the sign was meant to be posted in a public school, establishment clause concerns are implicated. The law in…

Appellant Edward DiLoreto appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents Board of Education of the Downey Unified School District, Edward Sussman, Betty Ferraro, and Margo Hoffer. Amicus curiae, the National Legal Foundation, supports DiLoretto’s appeal of the judgment. We affirm.

We are asked to determine whether a public school’s rejection of a sign featuring the Ten Commandments which was submitted by a private party in *271 response to a fundraising solicitation for commercial advertisements to be posted on the school’s baseball field, violates that individual’s right to free speech under article I, section 2 of the California Constitution. In reaching our decision, we must decide whether establishment clause considerations embodied in article I, section 4 of the California Constitution outweigh the individual’s free speech rights.

While appellant’s intention of spreading words of morality and ethics is laudable, religious tenets set forth in the Ten Commandments are inextricably tied to his sign, and since the sign was meant to be posted in a public school, establishment clause concerns are implicated. The law…