Posted on 08/17/2013 9:49:51 AM PDT by kristinn
The chairman of a Port Vue-based political organization said he was given an ultimatum — remove an “Impeach Obama” sign or vacate the quarters he rents in a shopping center along Washington Boulevard in the borough.
Mon Valley Republican Committee chairman Brent Kovac said he did neither, so on Thursday his landlord Helen Siudyla-Totty painted over a sign that was painted on plywood posted after the political committee storefront was vandalized in October 2008.
“We did that mural on the panels where our windows were,” Kovac said.
Bricks and a tire were hurled through the storefront window a few weeks before the 2008 general election.
Kovac said Siudyla-Totty told him she had received “so many threatening phone calls” about the sign. Port Vue borough officials said they had no reports of any complaints about it.
The sign reportedly went up on Tuesday and was painted over later in the week. As of Friday morning red and blue rectangles had replaced the “Impeach Obama” caption.
“I just sat and watched it happen,” Kovac said. “I talked to a legal person who said, ‘You should call the ACLU.'”
The Mon Valley Republican Committee chairman said he wanted to tell friends to call his landlord in support of the sign, which went up as an endorsement of the “Overpasses for Obama's Impeachment” campaign.
“We were trying to get this together for a national event,” Kovac said.
SNIP
Impeach Obama stickers were the most popular handouts at our Republican booth at our recent County Fair.
Nope, the 1st Amendment only applies to the federal government, specifically congress. (Before that evil called incorporation
, anyway.) Even if the first were incorporated against the states it still does not apply to private persons. The issue here is really that of rental agreements, if there's no prohibition in the agreement WRT political signage (or, perhaps, a sort of upkeep clause) then the owner doesn't have a leg to stand on; whereas the issue in the baker's case was the ability of a business to refuse service to anybody.
The two situations have nothing in common.
Were the stickers handed-out by a clown in an Obama mask? Or better yet, was there a picture of a clown in an Obama mask on the Impeach Obama sticker?
“We freepers sided with the bakery owners being sued by the homos for refusing to bake a wedding cake for them in their own store.
How can we be against this particular store-front owner for refusing to allow a sign in or by his front window that he finds offensive also?
I mentally agree with the former and disagree with the latter, but I’m having a little trouble trying to be consistent here.”
Because sadly there are people here who are just as hypocritical as their counterparts on the left.
In stories like these there frequently doesn’t seem to be a principle involved at all. It’s either “It pi$$e$ off liberals so I’m for it” or “Liberals are for it so I’m against it”.
There also seems to be more than a little bit of the victim hood mentality here.
Politics has largely become nothing more than a spectator sport and IMHO it’s why we citizens are so easily maipulated.
Both sides run on emotions similar to “Sports Hate”
The lease is kind of a law unto itself.
The Constitution declares that we have the right of Free Speech in this country and that means Political Speech. The tenant has the right to use the property as his own, as long as his rent is up to date and he does not violate the terms of his lease. That is quite different from telling a business owner who he must serve.
Bump
“lowbridge bump”
:)
Ah! Memories of Hitler’s brown-shirts. Only now it’s Obama’s black-shirts.
Whoa, good line.
Republicans are BALL LESS.
Motto of the year!
Congranulations!
King Obama communists army in action. America is lost.
Didn't you read in the article that what the renter put up wasn't a "sign" sign? The guy painted his message as a MURAL on existing wood panels on the front surface of the store.
Do you know if painting the store front without notification to the owner is permitted in the lease or not? Do you know if permanently painting a mural on the store's front wood panels is permitted in the lease or not?
When you read a copy of the lease let me know.
(P.S....My name is MinuteGal and I approve this guy's message. However, tenants cannot ALWAYS do what they want, and that's what lease terms are for).
Leni
I said “as long as”. I’ll bet you haven’t read the rental agreement either. And I did read the article. What do you have against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? (FOS)
Can the landlord be held responsible for security, and lack thereof?
I believe in property owners' rights as much as renters' rights.
Your last sentence is so childish that it doesn't belong on an adult forum.
Leni
My last sentence was very adult and meant in that vein. So, don’t get snarky with me.
The SCOTUS has frequently upheld the right of freedom of speech — everything from burning flags (which I hate) to writing letters to the newspaper, or speaking out at a town hall. That includes posting signs on your lawn, or in your front window, AS LONG AS (there’s that little disclaimer again) it doesn’t violate the city ordinances. In the case of leased property, the lessee has the same rights as the property owner, unless the owner has incuded a clause prohibiting such use. (And I’m not sure that would stand in court in the case of political speech.)
In my town, for instance, the City had a rule prohibiting the use of candidate yard signs, except during a narrowly defined period before a election. That was challenged and thrown out by the courts. If people want to display yard signs for, or against, a candidate, they now can do so at any time of the year. Political advocates now have the same rights as realtors and other advertisers. The courts over-ruled the city ordinance. Our right to freedom of speech is held in the highest regard by the courts. I should think that a long time member of Free Republic, like yourself, would appreciate that concept.
On the other hand, I don’t think the courts have a clear record about forcing, or prohibiting, with whom a business person must do business (baking a wedding cake) for instance. Especially in a “right to work” state. The meddlers, like Obama and Hillary and Mayor Bloomburg, would have us believe differently, but I think the jury is still out on that.
I'd be ticked, too, if I owned a store and some dude repainted the store front or even part of it without my permission.
Your rant is unapplicable to the situation...and condescending, to say the least. I knew the First Amendment when you were undoubtedly still in diapers.
Leni
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.