[SJackson]

"Sea-Tacs contension that the Holiday Trees aren't religious whereas a Menorah is wouldn't have held up..."Yes it would as you know.

I can show you thousands of posts and reams of media attention which seem to indicate that the "Holiday Trees" do in fact have a religious component. Despite what Sea-Tac says. You and Sea-Tac contend that in this circumstance they're not at all religious. Perhaps a court would agree with you, but I doubt it. That said, it's a silly controversy. Holiday Trees are Christmas Trees, and Christmas Trees have a religious connotation to most people. They see them and think of Christmas. Which is a religious holiday.

Can you point me to several cases where "Holiday Trees" were displayed, other religous symbols, were specifically barred, and the courts said "fine"?

Christmas Trees are associated with Christmas, what's wrong with recognizing that?

[mrsmith]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=492&invol=573
ALLEGHENY COUNTY v. GREATER PITTSBURGH ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court
...The Christmas tree, unlike the menorah, is not itself a religious symbol. Although Christmas trees once carried religious connotations, today they typify the secular celebration of Christmas... The widely accepted view of the Christmas tree as the preeminent secular symbol of the Christmas holiday season serves to emphasize the secular component of the message communicated by other elements of an accompanying holiday display, including the Chanukah menorah.

"Christmas Trees are associated with Christmas, what's wrong with recognizing that? "
It would have required the court to apply their Lemon Test and strike down every public Christmas Tree in the country.

Seapac could have displayed the menorah with the trees- along with all other symbols if done in a way that the whole display did not endorse a religion- but they were not required to and obviously avoided a lot of problems by not doing so.