Comments on: Wars and Rumors of Wars on Christmas

By: lawyerchik1

lawyerchik1 — Sun, 04 Dec 2005 16:42:10 +0000

Interesting update on the Detroit News article – the so-called “homeowners association” bylaws that were cited as the basis for the objection to the homeowner’s nativity scene? Weren’t!
“The board of directors of Singh Development, the builder of Tollgate Woods, may have misinterpreted subdivision bylaws by telling the Samonas that they needed permission for the lawn display and threatening a fine of $25 to $100 for failing to comply.”
Apparently, the first letter was an error and that provisions of the bylaws do not apply to holiday or religious displays.

By: Alan K. Henderson

Alan K. Henderson — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 04:34:41 +0000

Oh, my earlier comment can be stated better: the “War on Christmas” is a cultural meme.

By: Alan K. Henderson

Alan K. Henderson — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 04:31:17 +0000

I’m still waiting for the ACLU to notice Nueces County, Texas. There’s a Farm Road 666, and the county seat is Corpus Christi (named for the Catholic feast by that name).

By: Chuck

Chuck — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 01:01:22 +0000

Gotta love FOX, Balta. Happy Holy Days, everyone!

By: lawyerchik1

lawyerchik1 — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:39:01 +0000

I’ll put that at the top of my “to-do” list for today – combing the Internet for examples that don’t have any extras….

By: Foltz

Foltz — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:23:06 +0000

“Since a contract may be waived or modified by action or inaction, the question about what was objected to and on what basis is not only relevant, it may be dispositive.”
Maybe if this issue is taken before a court, but at the moment it appears to be before the HOA which isn’t really bound by anything more than whatever form of Robert’s they wish to use that day.
“In the context of the discussion about whether there is or is not a “war on Christmas”, this was offered as illustrative of the factual basis for such a suggestion.”
Which is fine, but any examples might wish to avoid HOA references since they are notoriously finicky about what is and what is not in violation of their rules.

By: Balta

Balta — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:55:03 +0000

Along these lines...this was the funniest thing I saw the whole day yesterday.

By: lawyerchik1

lawyerchik1 — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:13:20 +0000

Since a contract may be waived or modified by action or inaction, the question about what was objected to and on what basis is not only relevant, it may be dispositive.
Where there is a waiver by past practice, as may have occurred in this case by virtue of the association’s allowing all of the lawn ornaments to be there until someone complained, and then you have the selected demand that they remove only those items that are deemed “offensive”, you’re no longer talking about contractual rights – you’re talking about intent to stifle the content of someone’s expression of religious belief.
In the context of the discussion about whether there is or is not a “war on Christmas”, this was offered as illustrative of the factual basis for such a suggestion.

By: Foltz

Foltz — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:59:01 +0000

“The association contract wasn’t the trigger point”
Maybe not, but it is the leverage for action on the complaint, which means all of the other issues are moot. The association either agrees with the persons complaint or they are bound by a lowest common denominator clause in the contract.
Either way you are back to not complaining about the very agreement the family signed. You aren’t losing any freedoms when you willingly sign them away.

By: lawyerchik1

lawyerchik1 — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:40:30 +0000

“Also since when are Homeowners Associations a measuring stick for anything, other than as an exercise in reading (and understanding) the contracts you sign?”
The association contract wasn’t the trigger point – it was another homeowner’s objection to specific content (i.e., the nativity scene) rather than to all lawn ornamentation (which would have been a stronger argument).
The result is that these individuals’ freedom of expression (by display) is being attacked for objection to content, which is a violation of the family’s Constitutional rights. That it is occurring during the Christmas season is indicative of the status of a national climate in which such attacks are more likely to succeed – kind of like getting an opportunistic virus in an already-weakened system……