Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

Tchiowa wrote in message
ups.com...

brique wrote:
James A. Donald wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:58:12 -0500, "Sancho Panza"
We all know the pace of negotiations, especially when
legal billing is involved, can be glacial. But the
airport authority had the request months ago and did
not advise the requester until the trees were up and
the requester's holiday was nigh.

Your argument is hypocritical, since you have explained
that *any* observation of christmas by a government
institution, such as letting its employees go home on
christmas, is grounds for a lawsuit. The airport had no
reason to expect that any negotiation would be fruitful,
for these negotiations are invariably used as an
instrument of attack, rather than as a way to reach a
mutually agreeable result.

If the legal rulings place Seattle Airport in an awkward position, that
is
not the fault of the one who points out that their actions are contrary
to
legal rulings.

But their actions were *not* contrary to legal rulings. They were well
within legal rulings. Sometimes lawsuits are threatened to use a tool
to force people to do things they otherwise wouldn't, just to avoid the
cost of the suit.

So? then they should call the rabbi's bluff, if they haven't got the bottle
to resist then they don't deserve sympathy. they chose their own fate.


The US Supreme Court has made it very clear that there is nothing wrong
with a municipal organization or any government entity putting up
secular decorations to celebrate Christmas. Had they put up a Manger
scene or pictures of a Baby Jesus they would have been contrary to
court rulings. But a Christmas Tree is not.

then they ****ed themselves up, why should we cry?


That the current action partially breached that ruling, and
the solution which will appease the complainant still breaches that
ruling
is not his fault either. It is for the airport to act in a legal manner
in
its actions, not for the complainant to produce a solution which removes
the
need for Seattle Airport to think about how to act lawfully.

Sancho Panza wrote in message
...

"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:02:30 -0500, "Sancho Panza"
The airport's explanaton doesn't even stand up as a
feeble one. They had more than enough time to work out
the proper arrangements.

The last time, working out the proper arrangements
required two lawsuits and two lengthy court appearances.
Putting up a menorah on public property is extremely
dangerous, in that no one can know what constitutes
compliance with the proper arrangements.

That is because at least the airport people were clearly intransigent.

And what precisely is the danger from a menorah?


fire hazard.... all those candles near flammable trees.......

James A. Donald wrote in message
...
"brique"
No, he threatend to sue using a precedent set by a
previous court case in which it was held that he, the
rabbi, had a right to ask for equal represetation for
his religous symbols.

But other cases have determined that Menorah is a
religious symbol, and a Christmas tree is not. In
particular, the precedent of ACLU vs Schundler says that
if his request was granted, then a *permanent*
injunction forbidding that display or any similar
display should be applied against the airport.

To comply with his demand, and to simultaneously comply
with ACLU vs Schundler, the airport would have to have
added not only an eight foot menorah, but presumably an
eight foot manger, plus a pile of other stuff, which
would require a team of lawyers and a team of
anthropologists to figure out.

And so what? You think christains should be exempted from that law?


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

Hatunen wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:27:06 -0800, "PTravel"
wrote:


"Tchiowa" wrote in message
roups.com...

PTravel wrote:
"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
"brique"
No, he threatend to sue using a precedent set by a
previous court case in which it was held that he, the
rabbi, had a right to ask for equal represetation for
his religous symbols.

But other cases have determined that Menorah is a
religious symbol, and a Christmas tree is not. In
particular, the precedent of ACLU vs Schundler says that
if his request was granted, then a *permanent*
injunction forbidding that display or any similar
display should be applied against the airport.

To comply with his demand, and to simultaneously comply
with ACLU vs Schundler, the airport would have to have
added not only an eight foot menorah, but presumably an
eight foot manger, plus a pile of other stuff, which
would require a team of lawyers and a team of
anthropologists to figure out.

What is it with you, anyway? How many times do you have to be told
that
Schundler is a 3rd Circuit case, and is not precedent in the 9th
Circuit,
where SeaTac is located.

What you mean is that it is not a "binding precedent".

No, I mean exactly what I said. 3rd Circuit law has not precedential
effect
in the 9th Circuit.

Any court decision may have be used as precedent in the case in
another jurisdiction. The finding is not *binding* outside the
3rd district at this time, though. The Schundler case will be
inevitable cited as precedent by the plaintiffs in a case in
another district, though.


While other
jurisdictions are not obligated to follow the precedent it is and will
be used to help establish precedent if necessary.

No, you're wrong. It is not a matter of other jurisdictions not being
obligated to follow it -- it is that it is not law in other
jurisidictions.

Quite correct. But precedent and law are different things.



So it is completely
relevant. And the airport's lawyers would have advised them to comply.

No, it's not. By the way, you know I'm lawyer, don't you?

You sure don't sound like one.

wait to you get his bill for this advice.......




--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Tchiowa wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:

The bottom line of all these comparisons is that
capitalism makes people rich and free,

That's a known falsehood. Capitalism concentrates wealth into the
hands of a very few, leaving the majority poor and with few freedoms.

Blithering nonsense.

Like most ideologues you ignore the truth and cling to your religion.

--
Ray Fischer

James A. Donald wrote:

The bottom line of all these comparisons is that
capitalism makes people rich and free,

That's a known falsehood. Capitalism concentrates
wealth into the hands of a very few, leaving the
majority poor and with few freedoms.

Except in every country that actually exists or has
existed The more capitalist the country, the richer and
more free the ordinary people,

That's an outright lie. When corporations own everything the people
are not free to do anything the corporations don't allow.

--
Ray Fischer

wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:

The bottom line of all these comparisons is that
capitalism makes people rich and free,

That's a known falsehood. Capitalism concentrates wealth into the
hands of a very few, leaving the majority poor and with few freedoms.

I have never seen any city in which wealth was concentrated in the
hands of fewer people, and the majority were more generally poor and
had fewer freedoms, than Havana, Cuba.

You've never seen a city with pure capitalism.

The problem with all right-wing idiots is that they don't know what
capitalism is. They think it's this utopia where anybody gets to do
anything they like, when the reality is that it's a condition where
everything is owned by a few and freedom must be paid for.

--
Ray Fischer

Tchiowa wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
"Tchiowa"
Do you have reading comprehension issues? No one
said that. It isn't that anyone who isn't Christian
is a bigot, it's that anyone who tries to block
celebration of a national holiday because their are
offended by the holiday is a bigot.

Who is exactly trying to block the celebration of this
holiday?

Those who become indignant and threaten to sue for one
reason if a menorah is included, and become indignant
and threaten to sue for another reason if a menorah is
excluded.

Neocon bull****. People sue when you religious bigots force
everybody to pay for YOUR religious displays.

It's not a religious display.

Why are you right-wing religious bigots such shameless liars?

--
Ray Fischer

Mike Hunt postmaster@localhost wrote in message
. ..
bunny wrote:

Nonsense. Everyone knows that angels left the baby Jesus in swaddling
clothes under a Christmas tree, along with some donkeys and lowing
cattle or
something. Then one of the angels sat on top of the tree while three
wise
men followed the Christmas tree lights, and when they got there everyone
unwrapped the Christmas presents they brought.

While this isn't all true, what do you suppose the star on top of the
tree represents?

Dunno, we always had a fairy in a tutu waving a wand..I think it represented
St Disney or something deeply cultural like that..... of course, it may just
have been a sinister gay plot to infiltrate christmas.... I was always
suspicious of the beard and the leather hat it wore...

wrote in message news:URbih.1635$3R4.1171@trndny06...

On 20-Dec-2006, Mike Hunt postmaster@localhost wrote:

bunny wrote:

Nonsense. Everyone knows that angels left the baby Jesus in swaddling
clothes under a Christmas tree, along with some donkeys and lowing
cattle or
something. Then one of the angels sat on top of the tree while three
wise
men followed the Christmas tree lights, and when they got there
everyone

unwrapped the Christmas presents they brought.

While this isn't all true, what do you suppose the star on top of the
tree represents?

I'm sure none of them knows what candy canes mean, either.

I don't, but then candy canes are not used over here... the sweets tend to
be chocolate, commonly in the shape of coins.... in homage to St Mammon, I
suppose...


Susan