RE: Implied BJ on Jesus, atheists support teen.
September 29, 2014 at 12:31 pm
(This post was last modified: September 29, 2014 at 1:43 pm by JesusHChrist.)
Heywood, I'm disappointed in you.
You think just because a law is on the books it should be enforced? It used to be a law that one could chop off the foot of an escaped slave as just punishment. There are many unjust and unconstitutional laws. Fortunately, if this idiot DA takes it far enough, this law will almost certainly be struck down.
The "crime" was not using an object as an item of free speech. The crime was desecration of a venerated object. That's it. The statue was on private property BUT (and a major BUT), in a publicly accessible area.
For anything other than a Jesus statue, the only recourse the property owner would have is telling someone to knock it off and get off the property. If they don't, they could be cited for trespass. That set of laws is sufficient to handle these sorts of issues.
The law is inappropriately giving an elevated status to this *particular* object. Obviously, it is on the basis of being a religious object. That part is clearly unconstitutional.
The easy thought experiment you've yet to respond to: If the statue were of anything else: Jefferson, Darwin, Einstein, Mickey Mouse, would those count as "venerated" objects? You know they would not. Hence the law cannot be applied without taking the religious context of the statue and its location into account.
You think just because a law is on the books it should be enforced? It used to be a law that one could chop off the foot of an escaped slave as just punishment. There are many unjust and unconstitutional laws. Fortunately, if this idiot DA takes it far enough, this law will almost certainly be struck down.
The "crime" was not using an object as an item of free speech. The crime was desecration of a venerated object. That's it. The statue was on private property BUT (and a major BUT), in a publicly accessible area.
For anything other than a Jesus statue, the only recourse the property owner would have is telling someone to knock it off and get off the property. If they don't, they could be cited for trespass. That set of laws is sufficient to handle these sorts of issues.
The law is inappropriately giving an elevated status to this *particular* object. Obviously, it is on the basis of being a religious object. That part is clearly unconstitutional.
The easy thought experiment you've yet to respond to: If the statue were of anything else: Jefferson, Darwin, Einstein, Mickey Mouse, would those count as "venerated" objects? You know they would not. Hence the law cannot be applied without taking the religious context of the statue and its location into account.
