Posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2016, at 17:06:25
In reply to Re: Allegheny » Lou Pilder, posted by Tabitha on September 7, 2016, at 16:57:21
> > Lynch and Allegheny support my position as that the association committed intentional religious discrimination. You see, you do not know what the issues are.
>
> No, it's not at all likely that the Allegheny case supports your position. The decision was mixed and involved multi-element displays on government property. To think it means that a wreath in a condo complex violates your civil rights is ridiculous. Why would the supreme court itself display holiday wreaths if it had ruled it to be unconstitutional? As usual, you take a grain of a grain of reality and warp it into nonsense.
>
> > Let me ask you this. Could the condo association place symbols related to Christendom and refuse the Jews to be allowed to have thee menorah included with those symbols?
>
> Yes, they probably could refuse. It happened at Boston Public Library, and the request was refused because wreaths were considered secular.
> http://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2014/12/06/does-a-wreath-mean-merry-christmas-or-happy-holidays
>
> The EEOC has also stated that wreaths, trees, and lights are secular as determined by the SCOTUS. It's extremely unlikely that you'd see a different ruling under the fair housing laws.
>
> > Also, symbols used by religions are religious if those symbols have other symbols placed on them. Like if a Christmas tree has a star on top, then that tree is a religious symbol if it stands alone as per Allegheny and Lynch.
>
> Maybe, but all you have to do is add a plastic reindeer. Then it's secular. Happy Holidays!
>
then what if they do not add the plastic reindeer?
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1091711
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20151112/msgs/1091828.html