Reply To: changing neighborhoods and anti-semitism

No Joeseph you have it complelty wrong. The ordinace was in existence years before there was talk of an eruv.

In Tenafly the court ruled that since the ordinace was not being uniformly enforced, and that house numbers, flyers even a church sign were all allowed on municipal poles with no fuss the fact that they were suddenly enforcing it regarding the eruv was unconstitutional.

Here is a direct quote from the court of appeals final ruling freely available online “We further hold, however, that the Borough’s selective enforcement of its ordinance likely violated the Free Exercise Clause.”

In other words if the Borough non-selectivly enforced the ordinace and banned every flyer, house number AND LECHI frm their poles they could in fact prevent the eruv (this isnt a diyuk if you read through the opinion they outright say this).

In other words you have it completely wrong! and have not answered my question.

(as an aside even if hypothetical im not clear why you are afraid/hesitant to answer)

however this discussion is in the past, and Ive kinda lost interest. IF you are to uncomfortable/dishonest/afraid to answer a simple question fine.

The reason Im bringing this up is to show your statement “as you don’t accept responses not to your liking – and then you go on and pretend to have not received a response as you re-post the same question a half dozen more times after slightly altering the wording of the question (and claiming it is a new question that was not previously addressed).” in the Chanuka thread is wrong

I’d accept your “answer” if it was factually based. I dont accept nonsense as an answer and your reply in this thread and it many others (I’d be happy to provide more examples if youd like) are nonsense and counter-factual as I have demonstrated and sourced above.