He did sue because of the Christmas Trees. The Menorah is only a side issue. If the Christmas Trees were not there at all, he would have had no grounds on which to sue. Therefore, they are the cause.

I agree that he's within his rights to sue to his heart's content. However, the results should not affect the company's right to put up whatever kind of decorations they want.

Next year, I'm going to sue a place that puts up Halloween decorations on the basis that they didn't include All Saints Day decorations. After all, Halloween and All Saints Day are much closer to each other than Chanukah and Christmas.

There are no decorations, or symbols for Hallows Day, except maybe for a cross.

Christmas is only Christian to, as luck would have it, CHRISTIANS. Plenty of nonChristians celebrate Christmas. Atheists celebrate Christmas. Why? Because it's a holiday about family and love and giving.

Do you have a problem with that?

I don't, just don't bash me over the head with my gift.


Sorry that statement just struck me funny.
But I'm laughing WITH you, in the Spirit of the Season..

Your argument about the christmas trees being the cause, is flawed. But hey, it's the holiday season. Happy Holidays to You! May you have great new year.

May you all have a great new year!

:edit: oh yeah..

Display the darn menorah, for christs sake.

Didn't anyone find that funny? I thought it was cute.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by nextguyinline]

I don't understand how it's flawed. If there were no Christmas Trees present, isn't it true that he wouldn't have sued?

Originally posted by southern_cross3
I don't understand how it's flawed. If there were no Christmas Trees present, isn't it true that he wouldn't have sued?

That is besides the point. The Christmas Trees were not the cause of the problem. The cause of the problem was the lack of concern for representing another holiday being celebrated by many, even when offered a menorah by a Rabbi, and being declined. It could have been a few Christmas ornaments and he could have done the same thing. It doesn't matter what was there, he just wanted his religious views to represented as well.

But to say that it was because of the Christmas tree? It was because of a policy set forth where only a Christian used symbol was being displaced, without regard to other people's religious views. It was more the policy than the tree, imo.

Originally posted by southern_cross3
I don't understand how it's flawed. If there were no Christmas Trees present, isn't it true that he wouldn't have sued?

Here's how your argument is flawed. Accountability. The Christmas trees were not the cause. The Rabbi was the cause. He is the one who threatened action.

Originally posted by southern_cross3
If the Christmas Trees were not there at all, he would have had no grounds on which to sue. Therefore, they are the cause.

The Christmas trees are not the cause. They were but props used by the Rabbi to make a point. The trees didn't cause anything. The Rabbi did. If there were no trees, but instead a manger scene, the Rabbi would still have threatened to sue. Even though the Christmas trees weren't there, the same action would have taken place. So they were obviously not the cause.

By the same token, another Rabbi could walk right by the Christmas trees and not threaten to sue. Again, the responsibility lies with the first Rabbi, not trees or a manger scene or any of the other people who walked by the trees.

I can buy that.

What I meant was that the absence of the Menorah was not so much the "reason" for the Rabbi's complaint as was the presence of the trees. Had there been neither trees nor menorah, he no doubt would not have said a word. This is what I meant by "cause."