• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists demand town remove church welcome signs

show that it is restricted to not put a sign there. if they have permission and it has been grandfathered in over 50 years then yes they have permission.
which evidently they do since the city has not taken it down in that time frame.

they have a 1st amendment right to welcome people into the city and with permission can put the sign on public property just like any other business or organization.
the fact you or anyone else might be offended is inconsequential.

Any other business does not have the right to freely use public property to advertise their product. That's the point.

I'm not offended. I personally don't care.

If they have permission then they have permission. Eminent domain, which you call grandfathered (which is different) probably does not apply. In most cases government is immune.

But even so, IF the town sanctions a religious sign, and a sign stating The Churches Welcome You is a religious sign, than all religious signs must be allowed, or none. The easy way out is none.
 
show that no other signs are not allowed. you are making an argument that you can't support.

show that it isn't. you say so is not an argument.
There are two signs, and in neither location are there any other displays of any nature that would indicate that those areas are public forums. Therefore there is no reason to think they are. No reasonable person could look at the signs and infer that those areas are open to the public for displays.
 
thank you for showing that you can't refute what I said.

How did I do that?

You can't eminent domain yourself into owning or using a piece of public property.

And it's not grandfathered. Grandfathered applies to the creation of a new law which prohibits a use already in place. In those instances the sometimes continuation of current use is allowed. This is not the case here.
 
And of course, the funny thing is that I bet that while everyone saying the signs should come down would say the same about any religion, most supporting the signs would not support explicitly Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Wiccan, or anti-Christian signs.

What do I care what sign some mostly Muslim town in Michigan or Minnesota put up? Oh that's right I don't. No more than I care about Oconomowoc putting up a sign "The Churches of Ocnomowoc Welcome You."

Oh the inhumanity of it all!
 
which of course is the entire point of the 1st amendment.
to protect those rights.

Yep. And those rights are in way way no threatened, compromised, violated, or denied a single soul by a sign welcoming people to town.
 
Yep. And those rights are in way way no threatened, compromised, violated, or denied a single soul by a sign welcoming people to town.

As the SCOTUS just ruled you do not have a right to stop speech because you think it is offensive.
 
Last edited:
How did I do that?

You can't eminent domain yourself into owning or using a piece of public property.

And it's not grandfathered. Grandfathered applies to the creation of a new law which prohibits a use already in place. In those instances the sometimes continuation of current use is allowed. This is not the case here.

No one says the own the property. That is why i said you can't prove your argument.
Hey have the right to post a sign on public property. That message is protected by the first amendment regardless if it is a church.

The right to free speech still applies even to churches if you didn't know.

So as long as the city allows for signs by anyone to be posted on public property then the
Church can post a sign as well.

By not allowing the church to post a welcome sign they are in fact discriminating.

You don't want to discriminate do you?
 
I've been to that town numerous times because my in laws used to spend summers there. I can't say I ever noticed the signs.

IMO, this is like when the Westboro Baptist loons act up and the usual suspects try to use their actions to discredit all Christians.:roll:
 
The arrogance of assuming someone is disagreeing only through ignorance shows how weak your intellect is.
1) An insult is not an argument.

2) You've said nothing whatsoever to suggest that the century-old legal views on incorporation are wrong.
 
No one says the own the property. That is why i said you can't prove your argument.
Hey have the right to post a sign on public property.

That's not necessarily true. Some public properties are public fora, but some are limited, and some don't allow free public expression.
 
That's not necessarily true. Some public properties are public fora, but some are limited, and some don't allow free public expression.

so prove that this is the case.
 
I can assume it by the lack of any other signs. It's your claim that anyone can put a sign there. What is your basis for that?

so you don't have proof thanks for admitting it.
it was that simple.

No what I said is that they were allowed to put the sign there. meaning they have permission to do so.
if you want to argue otherwise that no one is allowed to put a sign there then it is up to you to prove that.

as for whatever reason there are no other signs I don't live there.
 
so you don't have proof thanks for admitting it.
it was that simple.

No what I said is that they were allowed to put the sign there. meaning they have permission to do so.
if you want to argue otherwise that no one is allowed to put a sign there then it is up to you to prove that.

as for whatever reason there are no other signs I don't live there.

Your answer is confusing. You have just proved pinqy's assertion;
That's not necessarily true. Some public properties are public fora, but some are limited, and some don't allow free public expression.

You just admitted that it is not their right;
No one says the own the property. That is why i said you can't prove your argument.
Hey have the right to post a sign on public property.
But a matter of being allowed to.
 
so you don't have proof thanks for admitting it.
it was that simple.

No what I said is that they were allowed to put the sign there. meaning they have permission to do so.
But you also implied that any other group could also put up their own sign, which doesn't appear to be the case.

And since a large part of the case rests on use of that land, it's rather important.

Oh, and I don't think it was brought up, but the FFRF has said they're fine if the signs are moved to private property. So, again, it's not the existence of the signs, or their message that is objected to...but the intertwining of religion and government.
 
Back
Top Bottom