[billorites]

It's on private property I believe.

The issue is that it's in violation of a town regulation prohibiting flashing signs.

This one is huge, neon and it flashes. It's pretty obnoxious.

[milan]

You're right. He probably did break ordinances. It says he did. The point is that the ACLU didn't take it. Why? The content. Since when did the ACLU shy away from a case because what a person was doing was illegal? The two gay guys in Texas, remember them. They were breaking the law in Texas and the ACLU took the case. They are avoiding this case because it is a Christian who is involved.

[Conservative Me]

I used to travel that area on the way to college from where I grew up. There are religious signs all over the place. On the hills as you are driving through, you can see crosses and signs praising Jesus. Honestly, I give Worldnet credit for twisting the issue, as usual.

[Junior]

So, the guy's basically in violation of a zoning ordnance. I suppose if he'd posted a giant, flashing "Eat Me" sign, the born-agains on these threads would be out defending him just the same?

[RobbyS]

See #9 below, I think you are easily offended. It is not even especially tacky.

[breakem]

"prohibiting flashing signs."

I thought raincoats were a sign of flashing.

[Bellflower]

I don't think the sign is obnoxious at all, even apart from content. Are you sure you just don't like the content? On a building like his it looks "normal". And by the way the content is the greatest.