One complaint. Which means this town was looking for any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to censor even the word "Christmas" within its city limits. And did I mention that the sign was on private, not public, property? Makes you wonder what the extend of the municipal government's jurisdiction really is, doesn't it?:
“It’s a Christmas holiday, it’s a national holiday, not some random holiday,” said one man at the post office today.
Precisely. And, consequently, the "holiday" that would be eliminated altogether if not for its, shall we say, commercial aspects.
Over the weekend, several Department of Public Works workers put an electronic sign on a friend’s property, right on the main road through the town. And the message? Merry Christmas.
“We work for the town, and we just wanted everyone to be in the Christmas spirit and there are few decorations,” said Steve Barber, a DPW worker.
Two words: "Merry Christmas". No Gospel message. No Scriptural references. Just the generic seasonal greeting. On private property. And the Christophobes won't tolerate even that much.
But apparently, someone complained and sure enough, there are by-laws governing electronic signs. “We don’t object to the message,” said Building Commissioner Gerald O’Neill, “but the sign has to conform to size regulations, among other factors.”
i.e. "We object to the message - which really isn't a message, per se - but we have a fig leaf behind which to hide our anti-Christian bigotry, and we're going to take full advantage of it.
So the sign had to go. But one DPW worker said next year, they’re going to put a large banner across Route 139. “There are fewer regulations about banners,” he said.
There won't be by a year from now, pal. I guarantee it.
Think a sign about Ramadan would receive similar treatment? Or would the complaintant be vilified as an Islamophobe? I think we know.
"Diversity," my ass.
Oh, and MERRY CHRISTMAS. I dare Commissioner O'Neill to find a by-law censoring season's greetings here.
No comments:
Post a Comment