Shields of Strength are opening themselves up for a lot of competition when SCOTUS allows this. May they be victims of the law of unintended consequences.
The lawsuit sounds like the DoD is telling them to stop selling religious items. But they are specifically told to stop selling items with licensed DoD symbols without permission and associated with religious symbols.
Just saw a MSN news story about how Fox is reporting on this, it really is all about how they’re not allowed to make dog tags with religious themes anymore. Completely lying about what the issue really is. All the comments are about socialism and servicemembers should be able to have religion. God people are stupid.
The "First Liberty Institute" should really re-read the First Amendment, since they evidently aren't aware that the Free Exercise clause they've got their shorts in a twist over comes *after* the Establishment clause they couldn't care less about.
Despite the outcry from certain quarters, this matter concerns neither religion nor religious freedom.
There is NO Defense Department regulation forbidding service personnel from adding tags bearing religious inscriptions to their regulation dog-tags, and no one is saying or suggesting that they may not.
There is also no suggestion that Shields of Strength may not manufacture and market such products to service personnel.
The ONLY area of contention is Shields of Strength’s adding copyrighted Armed Services logos on their products, which is prohibited Constitutionally and by statute. They may not be used for any sectarian or political purpose and that permission for any commercial use be obtained from the Department of Defense.
From Shields of Strength’s perspective, their calculation is likely that scriptural tags bearing Armed Services’ logos will sell better than tags without them; if so, for them, this, like every other ostensibly political issue, is not about religious freedom, but MONEY.
Far more insidious is certain politicians’ taking up the matter for purely political gain. Their even more cynical calculation is that most of those apt to find this a matter of some concern to them will not bother to look closely enough to realize or understand that this is about nothing more than money, and that these unscrupulous and dishonest politicians are using the trope of “religious freedom” as leverage to harvest the votes they need to attain and hold office.
Shields of Strength are opening themselves up for a lot of competition when SCOTUS allows this. May they be victims of the law of unintended consequences.
We’re christstains, and we’ve been breaking the law for years. Allow us to continue. Let me reiterate, we’re christstains.
The lawsuit sounds like the DoD is telling them to stop selling religious items. But they are specifically told to stop selling items with licensed DoD symbols without permission and associated with religious symbols.
Have 'em try that with college sports logos. Hawkeyes, amongst others, defend their brand bigly.
Aw, man! This article's been up for 7 hours. Way too late for me to respond (everything's been said).
Been experiencing computer troubles since yesterday. My ability to post is being severely compromised.
Just saw a MSN news story about how Fox is reporting on this, it really is all about how they’re not allowed to make dog tags with religious themes anymore. Completely lying about what the issue really is. All the comments are about socialism and servicemembers should be able to have religion. God people are stupid.
The "First Liberty Institute" should really re-read the First Amendment, since they evidently aren't aware that the Free Exercise clause they've got their shorts in a twist over comes *after* the Establishment clause they couldn't care less about.
OT : Aria is eating my celery soup O.O
But they are doing it for jesus so that means they get to break the rules.
Despite the outcry from certain quarters, this matter concerns neither religion nor religious freedom.
There is NO Defense Department regulation forbidding service personnel from adding tags bearing religious inscriptions to their regulation dog-tags, and no one is saying or suggesting that they may not.
There is also no suggestion that Shields of Strength may not manufacture and market such products to service personnel.
The ONLY area of contention is Shields of Strength’s adding copyrighted Armed Services logos on their products, which is prohibited Constitutionally and by statute. They may not be used for any sectarian or political purpose and that permission for any commercial use be obtained from the Department of Defense.
From Shields of Strength’s perspective, their calculation is likely that scriptural tags bearing Armed Services’ logos will sell better than tags without them; if so, for them, this, like every other ostensibly political issue, is not about religious freedom, but MONEY.
Far more insidious is certain politicians’ taking up the matter for purely political gain. Their even more cynical calculation is that most of those apt to find this a matter of some concern to them will not bother to look closely enough to realize or understand that this is about nothing more than money, and that these unscrupulous and dishonest politicians are using the trope of “religious freedom” as leverage to harvest the votes they need to attain and hold office.