Gov’t Reportedly Ordered Church to Remove Pro-Life Signs

[Brian_1349]

“Under the First Amendment, the government has no authority to pick and choose what type of speech it approves,” Rutherford Institute president John W. Whitehead said in a statement.

Gov t Reportedly Ordered Church to Remove Pro-Life Signs Within 10 Days or Face a Potential Fine. What Happened Next Has Officials Reversing Course. TheBlaze.com

I am pro-choice myself. But come on, it is a church. It is their right and even an obligation to protect their values with any means allowed by the Constitution. Are we allowed to preach? Definitely. So keep your hands off our rights and our freedom of speech.
'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it', as we say in the USA.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Overzealous government officials. Good decision.

Harrisonburg officials are currently examining the ordinance to explore which signs are appropriate for display, WHSV-TV reported.

“The city’s intent was not to regulate the content of the sign, simply to ensure the structure and material of the sign met the requirements of the ordinance,” read a statement from the local government.

Realize that if religious organizations control government, the censorship will be far worse.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Score one for the innocents

 

[Agit8r]

The content of the signs should not be relevant to code compliance.

 

[The VOR]

The content of the signs should not be relevant to code compliance.

According to this quote from the OP's link, the content of the sign wasn't relevant.

“The city’s intent was not to regulate the content of the sign, simply to ensure the structure and material of the sign met the requirements of the ordinance,” read a statement from the local government.

 

[SwimExpert]

I don't see any evidence that the content of the signs was ever an issue.

 

[Agit8r]

The content of the signs should not be relevant to code compliance.

According to this quote from the OP's link, the content of the sign wasn't relevant.

“The city’s intent was not to regulate the content of the sign, simply to ensure the structure and material of the sign met the requirements of the ordinance,” read a statement from the local government.

And yet, they have backed down, entirely because the Church has hired attorneys to complain of bullshit discrimination against the content of the signs (which apparently still do not meet the code that everyone else has to abide by).

 

[JFK_USA]

FAIL! The content of the sign was not the issue, it was the material of the sign conveying the content.

We need a PSA for conservative media. Conservative media, Just Say No!

 

[Agit8r]

FAIL! The content of the sign was not the issue, it was the material of the sign conveying the content.

We need a PSA for conservative media. Conservative media, Just Say No!

I think this is a great example of the right-wing political correctness movement. "Ooh, we need an exemption from the basic rules of society, because of our beliefs."

 

[SassyIrishLass]

FAIL! The content of the sign was not the issue, it was the material of the sign conveying the content.

We need a PSA for conservative media. Conservative media, Just Say No!

I think this is a great example of the right-wing political correctness movement. "Ooh, we need an exemption from the basic rules of society, because of our beliefs."

Sounds like left loons and homos on SSM

 

[bodecea]

The content of the signs should not be relevant to code compliance.

According to this quote from the OP's link, the content of the sign wasn't relevant.

“The city’s intent was not to regulate the content of the sign, simply to ensure the structure and material of the sign met the requirements of the ordinance,” read a statement from the local government.

And yet, they have backed down, entirely because the Church has hired attorneys to complain of bullshit discrimination against the content of the signs (which apparently still do not meet the code that everyone else has to abide by).

Once again...religionists believe that the laws don't apply to them.

 

[Agit8r]

FAIL! The content of the sign was not the issue, it was the material of the sign conveying the content.

We need a PSA for conservative media. Conservative media, Just Say No!

I think this is a great example of the right-wing political correctness movement. "Ooh, we need an exemption from the basic rules of society, because of our beliefs."

Sounds like left loons and homos on SSM

Actually, they are trying to join the basic institutions of society, and without doing any harm to them at that

 

[SassyIrishLass]

FAIL! The content of the sign was not the issue, it was the material of the sign conveying the content.

We need a PSA for conservative media. Conservative media, Just Say No!

I think this is a great example of the right-wing political correctness movement. "Ooh, we need an exemption from the basic rules of society, because of our beliefs."

Sounds like left loons and homos on SSM

Actually, they are trying to join the basic institutions of society, and without doing any harm to them at that

Yeah two hairy dudes poking each other in the rear and pretending to be married has been going on in society for centuries. AHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Agit8r]

FAIL! The content of the sign was not the issue, it was the material of the sign conveying the content.

We need a PSA for conservative media. Conservative media, Just Say No!

I think this is a great example of the right-wing political correctness movement. "Ooh, we need an exemption from the basic rules of society, because of our beliefs."

Sounds like left loons and homos on SSM

Actually, they are trying to join the basic institutions of society, and without doing any harm to them at that

Yeah two hairy dudes poking each other in the rear and pretending to be married has been going on in society for centuries. AHAHAHAHAHA

So, what basic rules of society are gays allowed to break that others are not?

 

[Truth2Know]

The content of the signs should not be relevant to code compliance.

According to this quote from the OP's link, the content of the sign wasn't relevant.

“The city’s intent was not to regulate the content of the sign, simply to ensure the structure and material of the sign met the requirements of the ordinance,” read a statement from the local government.

Anyone who believes the structure and material of the sign prompted the complaint rather than the message is naïve or dishonest beyond hope.

 

[HenryBHough]

Would the same bureaucrat have the balls to try a trick like that with a mosque?

If he/she/it did, would the blowback come from a lawyer or a hit squad?

 

[SwimExpert]

Anyone who believes the structure and material of the sign prompted the complaint rather than the message is naïve or dishonest beyond hope.

Do you have any evidence to support the premise that the sign was ordered removed due to its content?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Under the First Amendment, the government has no authority to pick and choose what type of speech it approves,” Rutherford Institute president John W. Whitehead said in a statement.

Gov t Reportedly Ordered Church to Remove Pro-Life Signs Within 10 Days or Face a Potential Fine. What Happened Next Has Officials Reversing Course. TheBlaze.com

I am pro-choice myself. But come on, it is a church. It is their right and even an obligation to protect their values with any means allowed by the Constitution. Are we allowed to preach? Definitely. So keep your hands off our rights and our freedom of speech.
'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it', as we say in the USA.

'“The city’s intent was not to regulate the content of the sign, simply to ensure the structure and material of the sign met the requirements of the ordinance,” read a statement from the local government.'

Consequently, this was not a 'First Amendment issue,' to maintain otherwise is a lie.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

FAIL! The content of the sign was not the issue, it was the material of the sign conveying the content.

We need a PSA for conservative media. Conservative media, Just Say No!

I think this is a great example of the right-wing political correctness movement. "Ooh, we need an exemption from the basic rules of society, because of our beliefs."

Sounds like left loons and homos on SSM

Actually, they are trying to join the basic institutions of society, and without doing any harm to them at that

Yeah two hairy dudes poking each other in the rear and pretending to be married has been going on in society for centuries. AHAHAHAHAHA

So, what basic rules of society are gays allowed to break that others are not?

Forcing people to cater to their whims and wishes comes to mind, either you do as the gays say or the Government will fine you or arrest you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

An ordinance regulating banners was in place. The church was violating the ordinance.