Recent comments in /f/Pennsylvania

Historical-Recipe892 t1_j8mt0fb wrote

They are never required to believe any particular faith, just to hear for 1 hour per week about the One that is providing a roof over their heads. 

Considering they need all this grant money, sounds like "the One" putting a roof over their heads is the government.

2

CleverName550 OP t1_j8ms49n wrote

Hmm. The owner of the billboard knew the message before he agreed to the business deal. So him being offended by the message doesn't seem plausible and if you are offended by that milquetoast message you aren't going to manage life well because it only gets much harder from there. Lastly, not everyone has the zoning ability or even placement opportunity to erect a billboard along a highly trafficked area.

My main argument is very simple. A deal is a deal. I hope this guy refunded the client at least a pro-rated refund.

9

Odd_Shirt_3556 t1_j8mqztc wrote

What the actual difference is, seems like the guy with the electronic bill board has that on his property and posts whatever he wants.
This guy paid to have his sign on someone else’s property and the property owner took offense or was threatened.
Easy to solve , have a Democrat put the sign on their property.. They can be like electric sign guy who also reports he has been threatened etc. But doesn’t care. It comes down to post what you want, but have the testicular fortitude to do it in or on your property.

−9

Alternative_Manner36 t1_j8momye wrote

He didn't talk to the press. He talked to the company that was leasing his land for the billboard. The owner of the company was giving that as one of the reasons to cancel the contract, which, unfortunately, according to the contract, he had the right to do. Sadly, if the Dems want to impact a community that is so indoctrinated, they might have to purchase their own land and put up their own billboard.

5