Posted on 12/17/2007 5:04:40 PM PST by dynachrome
A businessman cited for displaying a gospel message on his own property is suing the town of Gouverneur, New York, accusing it of violating the U.S. Constitution's protection of free speech and private property rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at onenewsnow.com ...
I think he's got a case.
People put lit signs in their yards with words like "Joy", "Noel" and "Merry Christmas" all the time and I doubt the city issues citations to them.
I have seen a fair number of local businesses who put biblical quotes on their signs. If u are offended, don’t shop there. Pretty simple.
In today’s world, the 1st Amendment only protects pornography.
This would seem to cover the situation:
“GENERAL RULE- No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution—
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. “
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
Yep, it’s right there in the First Amendment....Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of pornography, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Many towns have regulations regarding Billboards and we have all seen them disappear over the years. The article does not specifically say why his sign is banned. He should have requested (perhaps he has) an official letter from the City as to what he was in violation of.
If it is the message being "offensive" he has a strong case and I hope he wins. If it is due to other requirements (size, proximity to the highway (as is mentioned)) then his case is weakened.
Wonder why a gospel message is offensive to someone.
Your reasonable approach has no place in Opramerica.
Kind of like firing someone over an expense report violation. That excuse is only used on the people you want to get rid of.
Yep, I see it simple like that as well. My guess is they are going to try and make something of the fact that it’s not on an actual sign post or pedestal, but rather just a banner hung on a trailer. They’re going to have a hard time proving that it falls under the classification of “offensive” when all he will have to do is point out other signs around the town that he would consider “offensive”. They really don’t want to go down that road if they’re smart (which may be debatable given the circumstances).
Either of those reasons would disqualify it under the religious expressions clause. I’m sure there’s further regulations about the parking of commercial vehicles that these trailers violate. But he’s going to lose this case, people are going to jump up and down, and blame the ‘liberal’ judge. He’s fighting a losing battle.
Now, if those trailers were moved to private property not associated with the business or it’s owner, the www.jsm.org was removed from them, then the city would lose their fight in seconds.
I think the business property is private property in this case. Do trucking lines ( I forget which ones I have seen) with gospel messages traveling down the freeway violate a law like this? ( the JSM thing may be trouble as it is not advertising his business,)
Just using the words “pornography” and “exercise” in the same sentence brings up creepy pictures.
Well, that clears that up. Now, where in the Constitution is the Freedom From Being Offended?
“I think the business property is private property in this case. Do trucking lines ( I forget which ones I have seen) with gospel messages traveling down the freeway violate a law like this?”
Probably, that type of activity is reserved for gambling and porn.
It's not traveling down the street, it is parked in the middle of a field along the road for the sole purpose of displaying a sign. Put down pavement, make a marked stall for it, and I honestly think the issue disappears because then it'd be legally parked. In the limited conditions it is presently parked, the connection to his business, and the advertisement for a website, I think the town's got their rumps well covered.
A couple of changes, the town wouldn't be able to say a durn thing. And it would be my guess that this was probably said to him multiple times over the years.
It is parked on private property, not just “in the middle of a field”. That line loses the argument right there.
The US Constitution doesn’t allow for that sort of distinction. All States agreed, when they applied for acceptance to the United States, that the Constitution was the Supreme Law of the Land, regardless of what was in their state constitution or laws. That little bit of the US Constitution has been ignored for far too long. States must be reminded of that.
These ‘ordinances’ that counties, municipalies, and cities pass must be brought to heel. The US Constitution is Supreme, whether the socialists that run HOA’s or cities want to acknowledge that or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.