Pentagon Orders Company To Cease Making Christian Dog Tags - Anti-Religion Push Escalates

a reply to: M5xaz

Great post, thanks.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


Gotta link to the filing or any image that would violate a copyright? You are damn sure of your facts, for having not seen what they are supposed to desist printing for yourself. Surely you are more rational than to believe any talking head’s claim without something to back it up. Seems like you lower or raise your evidentiary bar depending on how it suits your fancy.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

What kind of authority does pentagon have over what people lawfully do?

Isn't it their own business what kind of tags they put on their dogs?

Also, why focus on something so meaningless and trivial, when there are way bigger problems in the world?

originally posted by: BrujaRebooted
Surely you are more rational than to believe any talking head’s claim without something to back it up.

Look it up yourself if you need to see it that badly, you think Shields of Strength is suing because they like the decision? Talk about being pedantic.

So let's look at here actual facts of this case. The lawsuit currently being discussed is being filed by First Liberty for Shields of Faith against the DoD.

The lawsuit stems from actions taken by the Marine Corp Trademark Counsel and Army Trademark Licensing Program in July 2019. SoS was notified they could no longer sell dog tags that contain Bible verses alongside Marine and Army trademarked images. These cease and desist letters were sent out following complaints the Pentagon received from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

So with these facts in mind, let's review the OP. The DoD is not suing SoS. It was actually Trump's Pentagon that filed the cease & desist letters. And SoS wasn't targeted by the DoD because they're Christian but because the DoD's attention was drawn to these dog tags by an outside party.

So after all of that, is there really anything left in the OP worth discussing?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
So after all of that, is there really anything left in the OP worth discussing?

How the media was mean to the Catholic Church by exposing their pervert behavior?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I did look it up. I saw nothing not in public domain. Have you visited their website? If so, you would know that.

Where is the evidence? Lets see it since you are chomping on the fauxhead claim. I spent as much time looking for the evidence that Im going to, you need to find some to back up your stupid claim against Shields of Strength.

Pendantic? From the dude that claims a capital C on the word church means Catholic, and uses that to stray off to insulting the OP author over pedophile priests. Stop playing pendantic games and then calling others pendantic.

Show us some evidence Of your copyright violation claim.

originally posted by: BrujaRebooted
Where is the evidence? Lets see it since you are chomping on the fauxhead claim.

Yep, totally not real, they filed a lawsuit just for s**** and giggles: 6:21-cv-00484, Shields of Strength v. United States Department of Defense et al

Pendantic? From the dude that claims a capital C on the word church means Catholic..

Coupled with the sex scandal, yeah. Unless there's some other religious organization it could have been in reference to. But we both know there wasn't.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Thank you for the details. Got a link? Id like to see the images they used that violated copyrights. Ive seen nothing that would justify a form letter being sent in response to a complaint, regardless of which admin. Something here is amiss. There isnt alot of room on a dogtag. Perhaps the complaint was in error? Clearly that person has a stick up their bum.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Coulda been Mormons? There are more ‘ Christian’ churches than Catholic, you know, and boys will be boys, but this thread isnt about that and you know it.

Seems like Shields of Strenght doesnt agree that they violated copyrights, or they would simply desist in using them, and would keep on keeping on. Got an image of the violating material? Why spend the effort to sue if you did what they say you did. Wouldnt that be foolish?

Come on man, the evidence will have to be shown by someone somewhere!

a reply to: BrujaRebooted

Here is a link from Army Times from December 2019 about the original cease & desist letters.

Army complains to company selling dog tags with biblical scripture. Religious liberties fight ensues

Here is an op-ed from Military Times in January 2020 going over a few of the details.

The real reason the Marine Corps is disallowing Shields of Strength’s Bible verse dog tags

a reply to: BrujaRebooted

SoS removed most of the offending dog tags from their site when they received the cease and desist letters. However there are dyl a few dog tags on there using the Air Force logo alongside Bible quotes.

originally posted by: BrujaRebooted
Coulda been Mormons?

Nope, the Original Poster was talking about the Catholic Church, their posts made that clear. If you don't think so ask them.

Seems like Shields of Strenght doesnt agree that they violated copyrights.

Oh, well, sucks to be them. Maybe Jesus can miracle them a legal win.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I dont need to ask them because they know that wasnt the topic of the thread and so do you. You just want to take control of the dialog and insult the poster.
Its what you do. And you use pendantrickery to do so. Makes you feel in charge. Now run to a mod and complain you are being picked on, k?

originally posted by: BrujaRebooted
I dont need to ask them because they know that wasnt the topic of the thread and so do you.

I guess they shouldn't have included it if they didn't want people to discuss it, they made it part of the topic. Sounds like you have a problem with how the Original Post was written.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Thank you for those references.

So Shields of Service were granted a license to use the logos back in 2012, but now some people got butthurt and want to make them stop?

The servicepersons can still wear the Bible verses on a dogtag without the logo? Or are they prohibited entirely now?

Seems the military was already concerned about Karens bitching when they granted the license. To revoke it now after hearing from the control freak crowd, they are going to cost this company retooling and deprive servicepersons their source of comfort and inspiration? That seems wishywashy cowardly to me.

a reply to: BrujaRebooted

The servicepersons can still wear the Bible verses on a dogtag without the logo?

Correct. Every branch of the military has regulations that prevent the use of trademarked materials alongside anything promoting a specific religion. SoS is more than welcome to sell Bible verse dog tags to service members as long as they remove the trademarked logos.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

yep ... my understanding is that the Military is to be as religion and politics Free As Is Possible....

the Pentagon is using their gravitas to stop the dog-tag rip-offs and let the Military concern themselves with military functions

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Seems like you must have flunked a course in reading for comprehension if you are unable to filter the main topic of a lengthly paragraph. You have focused on one minor sentence, thats called cherry picking, didnt you know? You are pendantically using the cherry to annoy, distract, divert or insult, or otherwise push an agenda. Thats the entire point of cherrypicking, which you cannot deny you have done.

You make a game of harassing posters while brushing up against the boundary of the T&C. Its what you do. Fun times!

originally posted by: BrujaRebooted
Seems like you must have flunked a course in reading for comprehension.

...

You have focused on one minor sentence...

Two sentences. What was that about reading?