Dec 16th 2011, 17:31:09
It is a matter of passive vs. active.
You have the right to believe whatever you want, but when you subject that believe onto others (via activity scenes on public property etc.) you are actively pushing your rights at the expense of others who are passively expressing theirs (others are passive because they are not attempting to subject others to their beliefs, they are just minding their own business).
So the legality of the issue revolvers around this active vs. passive dynamic.
The Christians are the instigators by placing activity scenes etc. on church property, thus they are the ones activly negatively impacting the rights of others, which is why they go into the case on bad footing.
You have the right to believe whatever you want, but when you subject that believe onto others (via activity scenes on public property etc.) you are actively pushing your rights at the expense of others who are passively expressing theirs (others are passive because they are not attempting to subject others to their beliefs, they are just minding their own business).
So the legality of the issue revolvers around this active vs. passive dynamic.
The Christians are the instigators by placing activity scenes etc. on church property, thus they are the ones activly negatively impacting the rights of others, which is why they go into the case on bad footing.