If the sign read "I am a proud gay man" I bet the ACLU would pick up the case! This is a crock. Yeah, he probably broke ordinances, but the reality is, the content is what made the ACLU say "uhuh, we can't do anything." If the content was Islam, Hindu, gay, transvestite, Greenpeace, etc. the ACLU would gladly take this case.
Like Bill Oreilly said, the ACLU has gone left and they don't plan on coming back.
1 posted on
05/25/2003 4:39:12 AM PDT by
milan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
To: milan
More info! Where is the sign? Is it on private or public property? There is a lot missing from the article you posted.
2 posted on
05/25/2003 4:40:42 AM PDT by
Junior
(Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
To: milan
Yeah...you are right. If the sign promoted the HomoNazi agenda...the ACLU would be fighting the judge.
The bigotry of political correctness strikes again
5 posted on
05/25/2003 4:50:09 AM PDT by
UCFRoadWarrior
(Now If We Can Just Get The US Senate Democrats To Run Off To Oklahoma....)
To: milan
Its a worthy cause to go to jail for. My only Lord is My God. :)
10 posted on
05/25/2003 5:03:40 AM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: milan
here's the local poop. bob foor used to be a bigtime car dealer in bedford. he retired several years ago and reuped with god. this building is on the corner of pitt and richard sts. in downtown bedford. the sign is on the back of the building facing a 4lane bypass across a river. the building was build in the 1920-30s as a showroom for cars. there used to be a large Ford sign on building in a more conspicuous place.in the photo richard st. is left of bob and the river and 4lane is behind the photographer. richard st is also business rt 220.
24 posted on
05/25/2003 5:30:33 AM PDT by
gdc61
(Crow, the main coarse at every liberal luncheon)
To: milan
It's plenty easy to find reasons to bash the ACLU but this is a poor example. Not only is the guy clearly in violation of a number of ordinances which the city is in its right to have, the BLINKING SIGN, close to a heavily traveled street is major driving hazard. When I saw this on Fox News the other day, the clear reason the city was not allowing his sign was fear that it would cause traffic accidents. But I perhaps you dont care about someone dying if there is a chance that this one sign is going to bring someone to the Lord or even worse that it interferes with your expression of religion.
37 posted on
05/25/2003 5:57:11 AM PDT by
Dave S
To: milan
Romans 13:1 says: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
I Cor 13:1: "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
The guy is breaking the law, regardless of the content of the sign, and he should stop.
Also, it's a poor witness, a "noisy gong" and makes Christians look heartless to unbelievers.
The Christians should be the ones after this guy to stop it. IMHO, his efforts are not Biblical, and he should stop.
To: milan
The man's sentiment is admirable, but I don't think it's something Jesus would've done.
Our Lord didn't run around breaking city ordinances by posting His Name where every passing Roman army could see it.
He spoke His Name by personal example.
51 posted on
05/25/2003 6:12:40 AM PDT by
maxwell
(Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation...)
To: milan
freedom of speech does not extend to a man's large "Jesus is Lord" sign It doesn't? Why? In the country formerly known as the United States of America, the burden of proof in this case would be on the government to usurp this man's First Amendment protections. As I recall from law, that is only possible under a fairly narrow set of circumstances (clear and present danger, prior restraint, that sort of thing).
60 posted on
05/25/2003 6:31:06 AM PDT by
IronJack
To: milan
But, it would be OK if it referred to a gang leader and was pronounced hay-SOOS!
68 posted on
05/25/2003 6:51:03 AM PDT by
JimRed
(Disinformation is the leftist's and enemy's friend; consider the source before believing.)
To: milan
Why do some Christians seem to have the need, such as this man, to be so ostentatious about his faith? Isn't it the way one lives one's life that is important? Nothing wrong with proclaiming one's faith, but why so in-your-face?
75 posted on
05/25/2003 7:43:50 AM PDT by
RJCogburn
(Yes, I will call it bold talk for a......)
To: milan
A borough government in Pennsylvania says freedom of speech does not extend to a man's large "Jesus is Lord" sign, threatening the man with jail time if he doesn't remove it, reports the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat.
No surprise, he can't burn a cross either, because that's offensive to blacks.
Before long, none of us will be "offended" But none of us will have the First Amendment either.
with all the peeceeisms coming our way and nibbling at the margins, don't be surprised if your children's children have no right's left..
77 posted on
05/25/2003 7:54:22 AM PDT by
Jhoffa_
To: milan
The ACLU is most discriminating in its civil liberties policy. In any other case, the person's constitutional rights would outweigh a city ordinance, especially about a sign on the back of a building.
It's funny how the historic view of a building is more important than someone's private property rights.
78 posted on
05/25/2003 8:48:25 AM PDT by
skr
To: milan
How dare this man tackle our free society by posting such an obnoxious sign!!!
81 posted on
05/25/2003 9:59:05 AM PDT by
AgThorn
(Go go Bush!!)
To: milan
87 posted on
05/25/2003 10:51:48 AM PDT by
nosofar
To: milan
SPOTREP
To: milan
Whoa!!! I'm from Bedford, Pa the same town as this man.
106 posted on
05/25/2003 1:57:22 PM PDT by
kuma
To: milan
My husband says he saw the sign and likes it. I know exactly where this is. Most of the people on the Bedford Historical Society are liberal Democrats who hate the Republicanism of Bedford. Trust me! Two of them are my relatives *~_^!
It's right on a main road that everyone north of Bedford uses to travel into the town.
107 posted on
05/25/2003 2:04:28 PM PDT by
kuma
To: milan
" ACLU has gone left "
They always were. It was started by a Communist in the 1920s, ya know.
112 posted on
05/25/2003 2:59:13 PM PDT by
WOSG
(Freedom for Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Tibet, China...)
To: milan
If it were a giant neon flashing sign saying "I'm Gay!", I have a feeling you'd be fighting AGAINST it.
113 posted on
05/25/2003 3:01:34 PM PDT by
Quick1
To: milan
Like Bill Oreilly said, the ACLU has gone left and they don't plan on coming back.
1 posted on 05/25/2003 5:39 AM MDT by milan If Bill oreilly had studied history,
he would know that the ACLU was founded by three Marxists
and funded by V.I.Lenin in the 1920's.
It was started to destroy this Christian Nation through the
Bill of Rights.
The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly. (Proverbs 15:2)
chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>
116 posted on
05/25/2003 3:17:20 PM PDT by
Uri’el-2012
(chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson