SNOWFLAKE ALERT: Man offended by cross on Christmas tree claims it caused him IRREPARABLE harm

[OldLady]

No, it doesn't.

Because the picture is not of the very tree that offended someone? Because a picture accompanying an article discussing Christmas trees and crosses features a Christmas tree and a cross? Does the article claim that the picture is of the actual cross and tree from the Indiana ordeal?

Never mind. Just shout FAKE NEWS!

Read the fucking article, would ya? It says it's a lit cross tree topper. Oh, Jesus. Forget it. You are being intentionally obtuse. I refuse to believe anyone is that goddamned stupid.

Try reading what I said about the articles. Try using your brain. Beats me why you continue to insist that something is fake news in spite of details to the contrary. Maybe it's because crying FAKE NEWS is currently in style?

I DID read your post. The articles I posted (Easy did not post an article) describe a lit, cross shaped tree topper. The rosary that Easy is describing in his OP is NOT what the suit was about. You can yap about what picture accompanies the "articles" (Easy didn't post an article) but the OP, as evidenced by the details, is talking about something fictional. Maybe he got "tricked" but you don't have to defend it.

Then why do you have to attack it?

Because you have the right to know it isn't true. If you want to get worked up about a guy objecting to a Christian symbol on top of a town's Christmas tree, by all means go for it. If you want to get duped with a bullshit story that says the guy hunted down a rosary hanging from a top branch that he couldn't even see without assistance, and then complained about it, then I guess that's your choice, too, but at least I told ya what the truth was. No thanks necessary. Geez.

 

[OldLady]

No, it doesn't.

Because the picture is not of the very tree that offended someone? Because a picture accompanying an article discussing Christmas trees and crosses features a Christmas tree and a cross? Does the article claim that the picture is of the actual cross and tree from the Indiana ordeal?

Never mind. Just shout FAKE NEWS!

Read the fucking article, would ya? It says it's a lit cross tree topper. Oh, Jesus. Forget it. You are being intentionally obtuse. I refuse to believe anyone is that goddamned stupid.

Try reading what I said about the articles. Try using your brain. Beats me why you continue to insist that something is fake news in spite of details to the contrary. Maybe it's because crying FAKE NEWS is currently in style?

I DID read your post. The articles I posted (Easy did not post an article) describe a lit, cross shaped tree topper. The rosary that Easy is describing in his OP is NOT what the suit was about. You can yap about what picture accompanies the "articles" (Easy didn't post an article) but the OP, as evidenced by the details, is talking about something fictional. Maybe he got "tricked" but you don't have to defend it.

I'm tickled that you read my post! You are still under the spell of FAKE NEWS though. The Pat and the Rosary business in the OP was obviously (so obvious, I can't believe I had to type this!) a commentary on the Indiana incident. It's pretty clear who was "tricked".

Of course I always read your posts, Compost. If this were in Satire, I'd be red faced. It is definitely not a spoof, though.

 

[Timmy]

The courts have ruled 100x over that you can't throw up crosses at town hall!

We must fight against Christian attempts at their version of Shaira law.

 

[Compost]

Because the picture is not of the very tree that offended someone? Because a picture accompanying an article discussing Christmas trees and crosses features a Christmas tree and a cross? Does the article claim that the picture is of the actual cross and tree from the Indiana ordeal?

Never mind. Just shout FAKE NEWS!

Read the fucking article, would ya? It says it's a lit cross tree topper. Oh, Jesus. Forget it. You are being intentionally obtuse. I refuse to believe anyone is that goddamned stupid.

Try reading what I said about the articles. Try using your brain. Beats me why you continue to insist that something is fake news in spite of details to the contrary. Maybe it's because crying FAKE NEWS is currently in style?

I DID read your post. The articles I posted (Easy did not post an article) describe a lit, cross shaped tree topper. The rosary that Easy is describing in his OP is NOT what the suit was about. You can yap about what picture accompanies the "articles" (Easy didn't post an article) but the OP, as evidenced by the details, is talking about something fictional. Maybe he got "tricked" but you don't have to defend it.

I'm tickled that you read my post! You are still under the spell of FAKE NEWS though. The Pat and the Rosary business in the OP was obviously (so obvious, I can't believe I had to type this!) a commentary on the Indiana incident. It's pretty clear who was "tricked".

Of course I always read your posts, Compost. If this were in Satire, I'd be red faced. It is definitely not a spoof, though.

Thank you. Sadly, Old Lady, it is you who are being obtuse. I have no wish to continue this discussion only to become red faced from the fruitless effort. Have a blessed day.

 

[Compost]

The courts have ruled 100x over that you can't throw up crosses at town hall!

We must fight against Christian attempts at their version of Shaira law.

I've never seem a court ruling over a cross in vomit. Isn't that art?

 

[Timmy]

The courts have ruled 100x over that you can't throw up crosses at town hall!

We must fight against Christian attempts at their version of Shaira law.

I've never seem a court ruling over a cross in vomit. Isn't that art?

Was the city putting a vomit cross on top of city hall??

Cause u bet Christians would run to court in a hot second to have it removed .

 

[Borillar]

PAT GRAY is the 'Snowflake of the Week' award winner.

Pat was 'forced' to visit a town Christmas display, was 'forced' to look at the top of the tree, and 'forced' to spot this tiny cross (above) hanging on the tree, thus 'causing him irreparable harm'.

The poor dear is DAMAGED FOR LIFE!

The truth is there is no way Pat could have spotted the cross hanging way up on top of the tree unless he was looking for it and knew in what area it was located.

The truth is no one MADE Pat show up. No one offended Pat. No one 'irreparably' damaged Pat - the damage Pat suffers from resulted from being a liberal asshole!

The truth is Pat - and many liberals - hate life so much and are so miserable that they go out of their way to take away what brings others joy and to make others miserable.

Pat seems to have forgotten that CHRISTMAS is a FEDERAL HOLIDAY.

Pat seems to have forgotten that the words 'Separation of church and State' are not in the Constitution but is an interpretation derived by liberals in order to push their anti-religious views onto others.

Pat is a hate-filled, ignorant liberal F* who came there with the intent of starting this whole thing (looking for a fight), to force a minority-supported view upon the majority of his fellow citizens through his attack on Christianity / faith.


-----------------------

"Pat Gray reminds us that it’s that time of year again for the ACLU of Indianapolis to sue a town because it has a cross on top of its Christmas tree. The suit is being filed by a Joseph Thompkins who takes issue with the cross being present on top of the tree because it “violates that sacred separation between church and state.”

“Oh good, good, because we have to have that separation of church and state,” Stu Burguiere says mockingly."

“Joseph filed the dispute on Thursday because he was forced to come into unwelcome contact with the display, causing him irreparable harm,” Pat announces.

Following that report, Stu asks, “He was forced? Did somebody tie him up and bring him to it and put him on a lift and lift him up and put him directly into eye contact with that thing? And then hold his eyes open and maybe put some toothpicks in there so he couldn’t close them?”

Man offended by cross on Christmas tree claims it caused him irreparable harm
-----------------------

Pat also seems to have forgotten that despite having MANY Constitutional Rights, The Right NOT to be offended is NOT one of them.


Pat, for being our liberal asshole 'Snowflake of the Week', we salute you:




Merry Christmas, Pat!

Oh, by the title, I thought the tree must have fallen over and the edge of the cross cut his dick off or something.

 

[Compost]

The courts have ruled 100x over that you can't throw up crosses at town hall!

We must fight against Christian attempts at their version of Shaira law.

I've never seem a court ruling over a cross in vomit. Isn't that art?

Was the city putting a vomit cross on top of city hall??

Cause u bet Christians would run to court in a hot second to have it removed .

It was a joke, dear. Your knee jerk outrage evidently has damaged your ability to recognize any thing else.

 

[flacaltenn]

Easy's OP seems to be FAKE NEWS.
Here's where the truth comes in. I have always liked a star, myself.
Bah! Humbug! ACLU Sues Over Christmas Tree Cross
Indiana Town Forced To Remove Cross From Christmas Tree

How is this FAKE if the ACLU involvement is REAL? And the D.Caller says the town bowed to the "pressure" of this one intolerant prick and removed it?

 

[flacaltenn]

Because the picture is not of the very tree that offended someone? Because a picture accompanying an article discussing Christmas trees and crosses features a Christmas tree and a cross? Does the article claim that the picture is of the actual cross and tree from the Indiana ordeal?

Never mind. Just shout FAKE NEWS!

Read the fucking article, would ya? It says it's a lit cross tree topper. Oh, Jesus. Forget it. You are being intentionally obtuse. I refuse to believe anyone is that goddamned stupid.

Try reading what I said about the articles. Try using your brain. Beats me why you continue to insist that something is fake news in spite of details to the contrary. Maybe it's because crying FAKE NEWS is currently in style?

I DID read your post. The articles I posted (Easy did not post an article) describe a lit, cross shaped tree topper. The rosary that Easy is describing in his OP is NOT what the suit was about. You can yap about what picture accompanies the "articles" (Easy didn't post an article) but the OP, as evidenced by the details, is talking about something fictional. Maybe he got "tricked" but you don't have to defend it.

Then why do you have to attack it?

Because you have the right to know it isn't true. If you want to get worked up about a guy objecting to a Christian symbol on top of a town's Christmas tree, by all means go for it. If you want to get duped with a bullshit story that says the guy hunted down a rosary hanging from a top branch that he couldn't even see without assistance, and then complained about it, then I guess that's your choice, too, but at least I told ya what the truth was. No thanks necessary. Geez.

You saying that size matters? Arguing over "tiny" is silly. And no reason to pull the "fake news" card. If it wasn't a couple feet high -- doesn't matter.

 

[kaz]

easyt is a 'fake news' purveryor and backed down on it when called out yesterday by me. He just scatted away.

The man has every right to visit the public spaces in his community. The town has the obligation to follow the law.

Further proof you don't actually read what you comment on ...

^^^ Further proof you are a hack. Trot along.

Clearly you didn't read the post you commented on, Fakey

 

[OldLady]

Read the fucking article, would ya? It says it's a lit cross tree topper. Oh, Jesus. Forget it. You are being intentionally obtuse. I refuse to believe anyone is that goddamned stupid.

Try reading what I said about the articles. Try using your brain. Beats me why you continue to insist that something is fake news in spite of details to the contrary. Maybe it's because crying FAKE NEWS is currently in style?

I DID read your post. The articles I posted (Easy did not post an article) describe a lit, cross shaped tree topper. The rosary that Easy is describing in his OP is NOT what the suit was about. You can yap about what picture accompanies the "articles" (Easy didn't post an article) but the OP, as evidenced by the details, is talking about something fictional. Maybe he got "tricked" but you don't have to defend it.

Then why do you have to attack it?

Because you have the right to know it isn't true. If you want to get worked up about a guy objecting to a Christian symbol on top of a town's Christmas tree, by all means go for it. If you want to get duped with a bullshit story that says the guy hunted down a rosary hanging from a top branch that he couldn't even see without assistance, and then complained about it, then I guess that's your choice, too, but at least I told ya what the truth was. No thanks necessary. Geez.

You saying that size matters? Arguing over "tiny" is silly. And no reason to pull the "fake news" card. If it wasn't a couple feet high -- doesn't matter.

You are completely and absolutely wrong on this one. I am 100% correct that the OP created a fake story, loosely based on a real one but with a completely ridiculous premise that a small, pocket sized rosary was the offending object. The lit symbol of Christianity on top of the town tree (which probably was at least a foot high btw) makes much more sense than the bullshit OP that Easy either made up or copied from somewhere. As I said before, if you want to get worked up about it, fine. But do it on the facts.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mod Note: This goes better in Current Events.

BTW -- Simple request for all. Not picking on anybody here. PLEASE don't use bold red in posts. We mods get confused very easily. And we scan pages looking for mod edits and notes. There are OTHER reds in the color chart that will do just as well..

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Try reading what I said about the articles. Try using your brain. Beats me why you continue to insist that something is fake news in spite of details to the contrary. Maybe it's because crying FAKE NEWS is currently in style?

I DID read your post. The articles I posted (Easy did not post an article) describe a lit, cross shaped tree topper. The rosary that Easy is describing in his OP is NOT what the suit was about. You can yap about what picture accompanies the "articles" (Easy didn't post an article) but the OP, as evidenced by the details, is talking about something fictional. Maybe he got "tricked" but you don't have to defend it.

Then why do you have to attack it?

Because you have the right to know it isn't true. If you want to get worked up about a guy objecting to a Christian symbol on top of a town's Christmas tree, by all means go for it. If you want to get duped with a bullshit story that says the guy hunted down a rosary hanging from a top branch that he couldn't even see without assistance, and then complained about it, then I guess that's your choice, too, but at least I told ya what the truth was. No thanks necessary. Geez.

You saying that size matters? Arguing over "tiny" is silly. And no reason to pull the "fake news" card. If it wasn't a couple feet high -- doesn't matter.

You are completely and absolutely wrong on this one. I am 100% correct that the OP created a fake story, loosely based on a real one but with a completely ridiculous premise that a small, pocket sized rosary was the offending object. The lit symbol of Christianity on top of the town tree (which probably was at least a foot high btw) makes much more sense than the bullshit OP that Easy either made up or copied from somewhere. As I said before, if you want to get worked up about it, fine. But do it on the facts.

How long have you been obsessed with size? Did it begin pre or post puberty?

 

[flacaltenn]

Try reading what I said about the articles. Try using your brain. Beats me why you continue to insist that something is fake news in spite of details to the contrary. Maybe it's because crying FAKE NEWS is currently in style?

I DID read your post. The articles I posted (Easy did not post an article) describe a lit, cross shaped tree topper. The rosary that Easy is describing in his OP is NOT what the suit was about. You can yap about what picture accompanies the "articles" (Easy didn't post an article) but the OP, as evidenced by the details, is talking about something fictional. Maybe he got "tricked" but you don't have to defend it.

Then why do you have to attack it?

Because you have the right to know it isn't true. If you want to get worked up about a guy objecting to a Christian symbol on top of a town's Christmas tree, by all means go for it. If you want to get duped with a bullshit story that says the guy hunted down a rosary hanging from a top branch that he couldn't even see without assistance, and then complained about it, then I guess that's your choice, too, but at least I told ya what the truth was. No thanks necessary. Geez.

You saying that size matters? Arguing over "tiny" is silly. And no reason to pull the "fake news" card. If it wasn't a couple feet high -- doesn't matter.

You are completely and absolutely wrong on this one. I am 100% correct that the OP created a fake story, loosely based on a real one but with a completely ridiculous premise that a small, pocket sized rosary was the offending object. The lit symbol of Christianity on top of the town tree (which probably was at least a foot high btw) makes much more sense than the bullshit OP that Easy either made up or copied from somewhere. As I said before, if you want to get worked up about it, fine. But do it on the facts.

I don't think the Rosary pic was part of the news account? Was it? And we need pictures with a ruler in the pic to determine if the size is any part of the IMPORTANT issue here. There is a 200Ft cross in Crossville Tennessee all year long. And it's not there just to piss off intolerant pricks.

 

[OldLady]

I DID read your post. The articles I posted (Easy did not post an article) describe a lit, cross shaped tree topper. The rosary that Easy is describing in his OP is NOT what the suit was about. You can yap about what picture accompanies the "articles" (Easy didn't post an article) but the OP, as evidenced by the details, is talking about something fictional. Maybe he got "tricked" but you don't have to defend it.

Then why do you have to attack it?

Because you have the right to know it isn't true. If you want to get worked up about a guy objecting to a Christian symbol on top of a town's Christmas tree, by all means go for it. If you want to get duped with a bullshit story that says the guy hunted down a rosary hanging from a top branch that he couldn't even see without assistance, and then complained about it, then I guess that's your choice, too, but at least I told ya what the truth was. No thanks necessary. Geez.

You saying that size matters? Arguing over "tiny" is silly. And no reason to pull the "fake news" card. If it wasn't a couple feet high -- doesn't matter.

You are completely and absolutely wrong on this one. I am 100% correct that the OP created a fake story, loosely based on a real one but with a completely ridiculous premise that a small, pocket sized rosary was the offending object. The lit symbol of Christianity on top of the town tree (which probably was at least a foot high btw) makes much more sense than the bullshit OP that Easy either made up or copied from somewhere. As I said before, if you want to get worked up about it, fine. But do it on the facts.

I don't think the Rosary pic was part of the news account? Was it? And we need pictures with a ruler in the pic to determine if the size is any part of the IMPORTANT issue here. There is a 200Ft cross in Crossville Tennessee all year long. And it's not there just to piss off intolerant pricks.

The Rosary pic was part of Easy's OP. The two news accounts I linked talked about the real topper, which was in one of the articles. I'm not the one who made size the point. The point is, a lit Christmas tree topper displayed prominently on top of the town Christmas tree is not the same as a rosary pictured in a human's hand to show the scale.
I've got nothing against the outrage here. I've got nothing against crosses on Christmas trees (although I've always gone with a star or angel). I've just got issues with the OP's misinformation.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Then why do you have to attack it?

Because you have the right to know it isn't true. If you want to get worked up about a guy objecting to a Christian symbol on top of a town's Christmas tree, by all means go for it. If you want to get duped with a bullshit story that says the guy hunted down a rosary hanging from a top branch that he couldn't even see without assistance, and then complained about it, then I guess that's your choice, too, but at least I told ya what the truth was. No thanks necessary. Geez.

You saying that size matters? Arguing over "tiny" is silly. And no reason to pull the "fake news" card. If it wasn't a couple feet high -- doesn't matter.

You are completely and absolutely wrong on this one. I am 100% correct that the OP created a fake story, loosely based on a real one but with a completely ridiculous premise that a small, pocket sized rosary was the offending object. The lit symbol of Christianity on top of the town tree (which probably was at least a foot high btw) makes much more sense than the bullshit OP that Easy either made up or copied from somewhere. As I said before, if you want to get worked up about it, fine. But do it on the facts.

I don't think the Rosary pic was part of the news account? Was it? And we need pictures with a ruler in the pic to determine if the size is any part of the IMPORTANT issue here. There is a 200Ft cross in Crossville Tennessee all year long. And it's not there just to piss off intolerant pricks.

The Rosary pic was part of Easy's OP. The two news accounts I linked talked about the real topper, which was in one of the articles. I'm not the one who made size the point. The point is, a lit Christmas tree topper displayed prominently on top of the town Christmas tree is not the same as a rosary pictured in a human's hand to show the scale.
I've got nothing against the outrage here. I've got nothing against crosses on Christmas trees (although I've always gone with a star or angel). I've just got issues with the OP's misinformation.

Size and now toppers...you are certainly putting a certain twist on this thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

easyt is a 'fake news' purveryor and backed down on it when called out yesterday by me. He just scatted away.

The man has every right to visit the public spaces in his community. The town has the obligation to follow the law.

Further proof you don't actually read what you comment on ...

^^^ Further proof you are a hack. Trot along.

Clearly you didn't read the post you commented on, Fakey

You are mirroring: accusing me of what you do.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

easyt is a 'fake news' purveryor and backed down on it when called out yesterday by me. He just scatted away.

The man has every right to visit the public spaces in his community. The town has the obligation to follow the law.

Further proof you don't actually read what you comment on ...

^^^ Further proof you are a hack. Trot along.

Clearly you didn't read the post you commented on, Fakey

You are mirroring: accusing me of what you do.

You are just posting to get your total up. Most posts on USMB for the month is your trophy of life. SUX to be you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

easyt is a 'fake news' purveryor and backed down on it when called out yesterday by me. He just scatted away.

The man has every right to visit the public spaces in his community. The town has the obligation to follow the law.

Further proof you don't actually read what you comment on ...

^^^ Further proof you are a hack. Trot along.

Clearly you didn't read the post you commented on, Fakey

You are mirroring: accusing me of what you do.

You are just posting to get your total up. Most posts on USMB for the month is your trophy of life. SUX to be you.

You are drinking early.