Interesting.
Last time I'd heard of something similar to this was a fella who had a (large) cross on his property; however, there were complaints and someone or *thing* sued him to have it removed.
I cannot remember the reasoning behind the plantiff's argument, but, do recall the defendent's was quite simple: "He c/would do what he chose on his property so long as it didn't endanger others and/or otherwise viloate applicable laws"; which, he sure didn't.
However now I cannot remember for the life of me the outcome of that case; which, I suppose if one thinks about it, the guy won and the Liberal-Socialist run rags simply omitted publishing his victory.
That's how they *operate* these days, y'know.
Elevated "The Sin of Omission" to a virtual art form, that bunch has.
"Two years and $4,000 in legal fees later, the matter was dropped by HOME the day before they were to appear at a Fair Housing Hearing. It seems they couldn't get any of the tenants of various creeds and colours to complain!"
Yea, and so *who* picks up the tab for the old man's sheisters, I have to wonder?
(As an aside, this is a *classic* example where "tort reform" is most badly needed & right now ie, "Loser pays *all* fees.")
"The Chairman of the Senate Committee asked who had come with the delegates in support of the bill (to allow religious symbols in rental & real estate). Aside from the sponsors, the only person who stood in support was the man himself. He looked to be in his late 70's and was wearing a big yellow button that said 'I love Jesus!'"
In nearly every [large] city I've traveled, there's *always* been a building somewhere in the downtown having a large cross either on top of it, or, painted onto one of its sides.
Have always assumed those buildings were the location of that city's Rescue Mission & never gave it much more thought than that.
After all, the building was "private property" & like it or not, the cross' presence was none of my damned business.
Having said that, I'm wondering if this man's apartment building wasn't housing tenants whose *rent* was eithe being subsidized or paid entirely by the godless government; hence, precipitating this action.
I cannot think of another reason the government would have any say in the matter, otherwise; moreover, I can see where the government was risking getting themselves sued royally on what're -- to me -- clearly constitutional grounds.
"There were several ministers sitting to my right who I assumed were there concerning some pro-life legislation. Wrong. When it was time for the opposition to testify (led by Gov. Warner's representative) The ministers stood in opposition to the bill, along with the ACLU."
Uh-huh...& all that glitters is not gold, M'am.
Too bad there wasn't time to check into the *credentials* of these "ministers," eh?
I mean Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jim Bakker, & a few other charlatans call themselves "Ministers," too.
Don't make it so, even if they "Minister" to as much money as they can.
Right?
"I'll be honest with you. I am very afraid for our country. Very afraid."
I *think* I understand your fear(s); but, please don't be.
What's to be will be & in the meantime we've real, full & rich lives to lead.
In the end the truth's going to prevail & I believe this in my heart, even if I'm not alive to witness it when it finally comes.
One's beliefs *are* "strength," & that strength negates all fear(s).
Think about it.
What can *they* possibly do to you or I for *not* believing their lies?
Kill us?
I don't think it'll come to that in our lifetime; so, in the meantime we've something we can do to *them* that's actually worse than death.
...leave 'em to themselves. ;^)