Prayer-sign lady wins damages from agency

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, September 3, 2003

[JohnHuang2]

A Michigan woman who sued a government agency after it tried to evict her for posting a sign reading "24 Hr. Prayer Station" in the window of her taxpayer-subsidized apartment has won cash damages and attorney fees just before the case was to go to trial.

As WorldNetDaily reported, Johnie Heard was sued last year after she refused to remove the sign from her window. Heard is a resident of low-income Section 8 housing in Taylor, Mich. At the time, other residents were allowed to post secular signs – such as "Santa Stops Here" – but Heard's sign was deemed a violation of the Taylor Housing Authority's rules.

Liberty Counsel, a law firm specializing in religious rights, helped Heard fight a threatened eviction, and she was allowed to stay after the suit against her was dropped. Heard in turn filed a lawsuit against the housing authority for violating her free-speech rights, as well as violations of the federal Fair Housing Act, said a Liberty Counsel statement.

As part of the settlement, the agency will pay the organization's attorneys' fees and an undisclosed amount in damages to Heard. The agreement also calls for the housing authority to adopted a new rule allowing residents to display signs in their windows or on their doors.

According to Liberty Counsel, shortly after the settlement was reached, the manager of the apartment complex was terminated.

"I’m astounded that the city would attempt to evict a single woman living on a shoestring budget solely for displaying a religious message in the window of her home," said Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel. "As a government housing facility, the city of Taylor and the housing authorities must respect the First Amendment rights of these residents. …

"We are very happy with the result in this case. The new policy and the large monetary payment by the defendants in this case should wake up other housing authorities to understand that they must abide by the Constitution."

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, September 3, 2003

Quote of the Day by WorkingClassFilth

[Guillermo]

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does this lady fail to understand?

[AppyPappy]

Is she in Congress too??!!

[Guillermo]

Was Judge Moore?

How about the VMI Cadet saying grace before the meal?

[Politically Correct]

Just great......
First the Housing Authority uses my tax dollars to violate someones free speech rights.
And now my tax dollars pay for their idocy (is that a word?) again.

[AppyPappy]

Are they all in Congress??!!!

[Guillermo]

Apparently the Courts thought so, as they ruled their actions "Un-Constitutional."

[AppyPappy]

The Courts also ruled, at one time, that slavery was Constitutional. And Jim Crow. The Court is fluid. Just because one court says something is true doesn't make it true. Another SC may say something completely different. Even Justice Thomas says he sometimes changes his mind.

[bmwcyle]

Hate crimes against praying are here.

[ampat]

There are ways to get your squandered tax dollars back, although not very self-respecting.

[BlueLancer]

"...shortly after the settlement was reached, the manager of the apartment complex was terminated."

A little extreme, isn't it?

[genew]

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does this lady fail to understand?

What part of "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" does anyone fail to understand?

[Constitution Day]

R.I.P., Charles Bronson.

[ladylib]

If you allow people to post secular messages, you have to let people post religious messages. Viewpoint discrimination.

[r9etb]

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does this lady fail to understand?

What part of "no law respecting ... the free exercise thereof" do you not understand?

[Guillermo]

I was usuing absurdity to point out absurdity.

[r9etb]

Well, you were right about it being absurd....

[genew]

I was usuing absurdity to point out absurdity.

I thought so. I merely wanted to illustrate that the establishment clause has two parts. Of course, those who want to destroy freedom of religion only point to the first part, and conveniently omit the second when they champion the "separation of church and state".

[Redbob]

Let's correct that headline so it is factual:

"Prayer-sign lady wins damages tax dollars from agency Taylor and Michigan taxpayers"

[AppyPappy]

And doing a great job of it too.