Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Court to hear church's appeal of sign restrictions

  1. #1
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,746

    Court to hear church's appeal of sign restrictions

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will decide whether an Arizona town violates the First Amendment by restricting where and when a church can place signs advertising Sunday morning services.

    The justices said Tuesday they will hear an appeal from the Good News Community Church. The church argues that the town of Gilbert, Arizona, applies stricter rules to church signs than to other types of non-commercial signs.
    If I can put up a sign, and keep it there for months, then a church should be able to do that too. First Amendment 101, folks.

    Discussion?

    Article is here.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  2. #2
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Court to hear church's appeal of sign restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    If I can put up a sign, and keep it there for months, then a church should be able to do that too. First Amendment 101, folks.

    Discussion?

    Article is here.
    Most towns in my area don't allow any signs on public property. They will be removed and thrown away. As a Realtor, for instance, for open house signs, they had to be placed on the homeowner's side of the sidewalk or that $75 metal sign would be found in the dumpster behind the police station.

    I'd much prefer that be the case. Having Burma Shave signs all over hell and gone is unsightly.

    As to your particular post, I'd take issue with political signs allowed but not churches. Frankly, I think they all look like crap, though.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  3. #3
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Court to hear church's appeal of sign restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    If I can put up a sign, and keep it there for months, then a church should be able to do that too. First Amendment 101, folks.

    Discussion?

    Article is here.
    They screwed up. You can't allow speech from one group and not another if you're the government.

    Maggs had the solution - no signs on public property that are not either regulatory signs (speed limits, no parking, etc.) or public information signs (public park activity announcements, reading of poetry at the library, etc.) printed and placed by the government for public benefit. No political, commercial, religious or other non-government signs (including those danged yard sale signs that block my view at intersections) on public property.

  4. #4
    Heavy Hitter


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    63,661

    Re: Court to hear church's appeal of sign restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    If I can put up a sign, and keep it there for months, then a church should be able to do that too. First Amendment 101, folks.

    Discussion?

    Article is here.
    Seems slam-dunk. Unless there is something I am missing. I never heard of special restrictions on "non-commercial" speech before. THat by itself sounds unconstitutional.

  5. #5
    Heavy Hitter


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    63,661

    Re: Court to hear church's appeal of sign restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Most towns in my area don't allow any signs on public property. They will be removed and thrown away. As a Realtor, for instance, for open house signs, they had to be placed on the homeowner's side of the sidewalk or that $75 metal sign would be found in the dumpster behind the police station.

    I'd much prefer that be the case. Having Burma Shave signs all over hell and gone is unsightly.

    As to your particular post, I'd take issue with political signs allowed but not churches. Frankly, I think they all look like crap, though.
    I'm thinking Billboards along a highway. But, yes, those are always on private lands.

  6. #6
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Last Seen
    11-16-17 @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,775

    Re: Court to hear church's appeal of sign restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I'd much prefer that be the case. Having Burma Shave signs all over hell and gone is unsightly.
    Oh my, NO Burma Shave signs? Roadside entertainment before the days of Super Highways ??? True American poetry in advertising ? Ste Maggie, say it ain't so.....

    Even the Everly Brothers loved Burma Shave


    The church could use stand-up cut-outs of the Everly Brothers.. for signage.



    Yeah DANA, it does seem to be basic but in some locales signage is tied to Zoning restrictions.

    Thom Paine
    Remember, on the other side of that screen is a real person. ( Missouri Mule )

  7. #7
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:44 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,651

    Re: Court to hear church's appeal of sign restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    If I can put up a sign, and keep it there for months, then a church should be able to do that too. First Amendment 101, folks.

    Discussion?

    Article is here.
    this will be an easy 9-0 ruling for the church. i will be highly surprised if it goes any other way.

  8. #8
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:02 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Court to hear church's appeal of sign restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    If I can put up a sign, and keep it there for months, then a church should be able to do that too. First Amendment 101, folks.

    Discussion?

    Article is here.
    Your first clue that not all is as you think it should have came from the fact that the church keeps losing on this. A first step should be to read more, not make a knee jerk reaction without facts. Let me help: 08-17384: Clyde Reed, et al v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al :: Ninth Circuit :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia

    The church filed suit because religious organizations where held to a different standard on signs. The city agreed, and changed the rules so that churches where subject to the same rules. The church decided it was not good enough and continued the suit...and has lost repeatedly.

    Reading the ruling, I can see arguments for both sides, but suspect the city is closer to being right than the church. It pays to fact check.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  9. #9
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Court to hear church's appeal of sign restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Your first clue that not all is as you think it should have came from the fact that the church keeps losing on this. A first step should be to read more, not make a knee jerk reaction without facts. Let me help: 08-17384: Clyde Reed, et al v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al :: Ninth Circuit :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia

    The church filed suit because religious organizations where held to a different standard on signs. The city agreed, and changed the rules so that churches where subject to the same rules. The church decided it was not good enough and continued the suit...and has lost repeatedly.

    Reading the ruling, I can see arguments for both sides, but suspect the city is closer to being right than the church. It pays to fact check.
    I have to agree. This doesn't sound like what is being presented in the OP at all. It may have been the case to begin with, but even that wasn't really set that the SCOTUS would have ruled "9-0" for the church. The sign code in no way restricted what could be placed on the signs, although certain information was required. Nor is it unreasonable to expect certain restrictions be in place for certain kinds of signs compared to other signs.

    The political sign rules had specific regulations related to their usage, 60 days before, 15 days after the election. The sign rules for the group in question here were different because they were in keeping with the purpose of the sign and the reasons for the town wanting those signs to be temporary. Now that they have changed the rules, there is very little for them to argue about here. As long as the town is enforcing them all equally, then it is just them complaining.

    http://www.gilbertaz.gov/home/showdocument?id=1494
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •