Go to Janes Opinion
- Add a comment
- Go to Atheists and Legal Minds Please Help Me Out! I Need YOUR Input ~ ~ ~
Hi Taps,
Yes, I would imagine we could all find things in our neighborhoods or areas in which we like to spend time that we find troublesome/offensive/bothersome, what have you. But a lawsuit is not usually the best answer. Perhaps you could discuss with your neighbor the eyesore on his/her property and nicely ask if they would move the signs. Yeah, OK, probably wishful thinking!
People used to converse and argue about these things. Now we just file law suits, eh? 
Thanks for stopping by!!!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on October 20, 2005 at 10:40 AM
| link to this | reply
JanesOpinion, There are some signs here in my area, on private property, that are offensive to me. They are big yellow signs that one could not possibly miss. They have great big black lettering that runs down our city government. I wish that they were not there. I have heard others complain. I would never have thought about taking someone to court over it, but I would be happy if the signs were removed and prohibited.
posted by
TAPS.
on October 20, 2005 at 8:08 AM
| link to this | reply
You're right. 90 feet is a little extreme.
posted by
DebbieDowner
on October 19, 2005 at 8:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Hi Gome,
as ever, well said. I can understand if it was a condo association, since they usually have a variety of rules and regs.
The whole case (the 70% or so that I heard) all seemed a bit odd, especially since it was not a church/state issue. Those types of lawsuits are becoming rather commonplace. But this. . . .
Thanks for stopping by!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on October 19, 2005 at 7:44 PM
| link to this | reply
DebbieDowner,
to be honest, I don't think I'd want a 90 foot cross across the street from me either (aren't you surprised???). I agree, it all is a bit odd, which is why I'd really like to find more details.
Thanks for stopping by!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on October 19, 2005 at 7:42 PM
| link to this | reply
Hi offbeats, great point!
I'm am 99% sure there would be NO lawsuit had the sign involved a pretty girl in a lowcut pink teddy type outfit.
Thanks for stopping by!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on October 19, 2005 at 7:40 PM
| link to this | reply
JanesOpinion -- without knowing more it is very hard to determine what the
motivations were. You mentioned an area with a lot of condos. If you were not using the term condo as an all encompassing term to describe property types but by it's real meaning as a type of property ownership. If the two individuals lived in the same housing complex under the same condominium corporation's administration there may be a perceived contravention of signage laws. Most residential, condominium corporation by-laws prohibit commercial signage of any sort while imposing restrictions on decorative or superficial additions to the property. This case may have all fallen under these guidelines which would not be clear cut, hence the loss in court. The atheist would be motivated by a perceived loss of property value. Or he could just have been a jerk out to make a point.
posted by
gomedome
on October 19, 2005 at 7:30 PM
| link to this | reply
Hello Jane
That's wierd. I would be afraid had he won his case. If he had then what's next? Are we to be told what color we can paint our homes? I had a neighbor in Oakland, CA who had his neighbors car towed right out of their driveway because he convinced the city it was an eyesore. LOL What a fight that entailed. While I'd rather not have a 90 foot cross on my neighbors yard I can see that it's not my business.
posted by
DebbieDowner
on October 19, 2005 at 7:08 PM
| link to this | reply
Jane
Do you suppose he would have sued if it were a prettty girl selling something pink? I don't know what it is about, but last time I heard, a man's property is still his property.. I can understand some condo association or neighborhood association, but outside that, where was the infraction?
posted by
Offy
on October 19, 2005 at 6:29 PM
| link to this | reply
fourfive,
not sure I understand you. Was it nonsense that the atheist had to look at the cross? That is, it was odious to look at? I guess it would be for an atheist.
Thanks for stopping by!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on October 19, 2005 at 6:16 PM
| link to this | reply
Justso, I went searching for more info, too, and could not find it.
The Christian Law Assoc website is www.christianlaw.org. Perhaps you'll have better luck finding info. I did not spend much time looking.
Thanks for the welcome back!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on October 19, 2005 at 6:15 PM
| link to this | reply
even though i don't think the person who had the cross should have been sued the case was probably built around having to see it, or some other non sense
posted by
fourfive
on October 19, 2005 at 12:41 PM
| link to this | reply
Janes
I would like to know more about this. Often these cases are brought before the courts in order to begin the process of getting a precedence so they can win later down the road. Usually the ACLU funds such stuff. Look on the ACLJ web site and write them they will know. Good post. Glad you are more active again. Of course you did not specify but I am assuming this religion you are talking about is Christian.
posted by
Justi
on October 19, 2005 at 12:53 AM
| link to this | reply
OK. I could see that. Makes sense.
Thanks, graceful, for stopping by!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on October 18, 2005 at 7:34 PM
| link to this | reply
Boredom??? Really I think its just ignorance.
posted by
gracefulwitch1
on October 18, 2005 at 7:31 PM
| link to this | reply