Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Gilbert Sign CasePosted: 2015-01-13
1-12-15 The East Valley Tribune
[EVNN Editor: Isn't it amazing that such a minor case as this gets to the Supreme Court? Could it be that the elites have taken an interest in Gilbert? Rachel Maddow recently claimed that Mesa, our next door neighbor, is the most conservative city in the nation. Really? How can that be when it's mayor just made a pledge for "Diversity" which is an agenda that is about as Progressive Regressive / Marxo-Fascist as anything you find in a blue state. Then there is the relentless slander by the MSM aimed at the board for trying to do it's job representing the demands of it's citizens. WHOA! can't have that! The elites don't want anyone thinking for themselves. Sit down, shut up and do whatever your union bosses and administrators tell you because they are only following orders from the elites and elites know best; don't you know?]
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments this morning in a suit brought by a local pastor against a Gilbert sign ordinance.
The case, Reed v. Town of Gilbert, is a challenge to an ordinance that regulates the size and number of signs a church can have on its property, along with the length of time those signs can stand. Prior to the Gilbert Town Council’s amendment of the ordinance in 2011, such signs were limited to 6 feet and a display time of 14 hours, whereas political signs could stay for the entire election cycle and be as large as 32 feet. In an earlier statement, Michael Hamblin, who serves as the town’s attorney, said the code provided nonprofit groups like churches and charities an opportunity to place temporary signs to promote events without obtaining a sign permit.
READ MORE
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/gilbert/article_14345202-9ab0-11e4-a4e1-cf1e178b856e.html
|
|