My thought’s here were triggered by some lawsuit that a polling place somewhere was “unconstitutional” because it was in a church. During the discussion surrounding the lawsuit the idea that the people that filed the suit were offended by the content in the church, crosses, anti abortion stuff etc etc.
My question here is not whether this particular case is correct or incorrect or even the facts on this case as much as the question of what people are offended by and how others and society in general should react to those that are offended.
As with all things there needs to be some “line in the sand” that probably shouldn’t be crossed. Not being easily offended I have a hard time pinpointing these lines. For instance in the above case I would not ahve been “Offended”. This of course tried to make me think of a polling place setting that I would be offended in…and I couldn’t come up with one.
IMHO we have swung way to far in order to protect the “Offendable”, in essence limiting the choices of many to protect a few. Example of “Happy holiday’s” versus “Merry Christmas” springs to mind this time of year.
This may be a bit rambling but I’m curious to find out, hopefully with some actual serious response, what falls under the definition of “offensive” and how “Offensive” should something be before we decide policy and legislation should take place to protect people from it?
~Matt