[msnimje]

Forcing anything , be it a bible or a roll of toilet paper, on those who do not want to receive it, fundamentally hurts.

"Forcing" traffic laws on people don't necessarily hurt.

But can you really say these people were being forced to take a Bible? If they said, "no thank you" they would have been punished?

[Vanders9]

I'm not an American, but I can't see the rationale behind this decision.

Gideons is a private organisation, not connected to the State. If they want to give people something for free, surely they have a right to do that. Its no different from handing out leaflets on the street, or getting junk mail through the post.

After all, as a previous correspondant states - they aren't forcing people to take them, let alone read them. Presumably the recipients can simply hand them back.

So how come this is abusing someones rights? Am I missing something?

[GSlob]

Fellatious reasoning. Driving is not a right but a privilege, conditional on acceptance of traffic laws. Being in a public school as a student is not considered a privilege but a right, not conditional on being bibled at. As for whether those unwilling to be the subjects of bibling were given an easy opt-out - there's no info. On this one the judge is absolutely correct.