Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: secular holiday displays Lou Pilder

Posted by Tabitha on September 7, 2016, at 12:55:00

In reply to Re: Lou's lawsuit-Lou's response, posted by Lou Pilder on September 6, 2016, at 15:52:57

> This is the only case like it in the U.S. The original finding of NPC was set aside and then the commissioners after hearing from me personally and also hearing from the board's lawyer will make a determination that will be far reaching.

Have you done any research at all? There have been many, many cases at state and federal level about holiday displays. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled twice, and established that wreaths, Christmas trees, and lights are secular, not religious displays. Even nativity scenes were judged to be secular, depending on the context. In fact the court itself displays wreaths and trees during the holidays! Your complaint doesn't have a snowman's chance in hell.

Here's an overview

> Each side gets 5 minuets and then the commissioners ask questions to make their determination and vote.
> This will be held at Dennison University near Columbus, Ohio and those that want to see me show what religious discrimination does in a community, are invited.

Perhaps some Babblers could attend, and meet you in person.

> I am up against a high profile Cincinnati lawyer and my only legal training is that I watched a few TV episodes of Perry Mason as a child.
> But I have already had his argument set aside in my first rebut. So I think that I can also show at the hearing that a finding of intentional religious discrimination is to be found.

Do you know who's paying that lawyer's fees? Your own condo association! You're taking your own and your neighbors' money that is needed for repairs, maintenance, and updates, and diverting it to this frivolous lawsuit. I hope you enjoy the increased HOA fees that will result.

> This is not only a Fair Housing issue, but also precedent to what constitutes religious discrimination. That is why this case is so important that the commission reversed the no probable cause and set aside the association's argument. I consider the case to be equivalent to Dread Scott and Brown vs Topeka.

What? Somebody has delusions of grandeur. BTW, Dredd Scott lost his case and failed to win his freedom :-(

> For those that want to see me bring justice to not only Jews that have to suffer the humiliation of discrimination that puts them in bondage to someone else's hate, come to the hearing and I think that you will go out in joy, and say thank God almighty, I am free at last.

You look pretty free during your recent trip to the beach with Elsa. Why don't you drop this nonsense and appreciate the good life that you have?




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Tabitha thread:1091711