[EXCH54FE]

Francis Manion of the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented the county in the case, noted that the court was clear that the Ten Commandments display “does not violate the Constitution and merely acknowledges the role that the Ten Commandments has played in the formation of our nation's heritage and history. This decision is an important victory underscoring the fact that such a display is an acknowledgement of history, not an endorsement of religion.”

[shelterguy]

“”The plaintiff in the case, referred to as “John Doe,” claimed that the monument was a major factor in his decision against purchasing property in the county.””

Would he be ok purchasing property anywhere using money that says In God We Trust on it?

[Cowgirl of Justice]

Hiding behind the name ‘John Doe’ certainly isn’t something Jesus would do.

Coward. Hope he gets hit with the legal bills.

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Good!

[DustyMoment]

This will probably be overturned and, eventually, end up in the SCOTUS where CJ Roberts will suggest that Congress should tax the display for $3 Trillion instead of trampling on the defendant’s 1st Amendment rights!

[SuziQ]

Sounds like the complainer was just looking for a fight. And I’m sure the fact that he was disinclined to purchase property in the county that would allow the Ten Commandments placed in a public place didn’t make the residents of that county sad at all. ;o)

[trebb]

The plaintiff in the case, referred to as “John Doe,” claimed that the monument was a major factor in his decision against purchasing property in the county.

Such tripe ought to be met with a quick kick in the ass and then give the guy a chance to change the tune. If a stone monument can keep him out of the county, then he is SOL for finding a place to live that doesn't contain a plethora of Christian churches and institutions.