[billbears]

Really? What case does she have? The family moved into the community under their own free will didn't they? Did they not understand the policies in place beforehand? Did they not understand that policies could, and probably would, change? What portion of the document, that was originally designed to apply to the federal government only, would you suggest she use against a private organization?

[tsomer]

Well, maybe I spoke too soon. It was remarked that the community authorities tried to reason with her and that they were concerned that counter-signers might proliferate, the controversy escalate, and their community be transformed into a Vegas Strip of competing political statements, blinking lights and all-- or worse. So it was not her statement but the feelings of the other members who might object that compelled their suppression of her rights. It came from good intentions.(Sarc)

Who can fault such forward-thinking caution? As we have seen with the muslim cartoon episode, it is best to keep these things under control lest we invite more serious problems. (Sarc)

Can a community organization institute any policy they want? Do these policies negate Federal and State policies? Could a community decide for example, that all of its members should have straight hair and compel people with curly hair to straighten it? People with curly hair could keep their hair if they wanted, they'd just have to pack up, sell their home and buy another. We all know how easy that is.(Sarc)

Which brings us to the final point: are all members of such communities there voluntarily? I can imagine many instances in which someone might agree to such a covenant in order to get a roof over their head.