Reply To: changing neighborhoods and anti-semitism

JosephI’m bumping this thread to give you a chance to either

a. point out an answer that you gave that I ignored

b. reply to my question

c. admit that you cant

or

d. prove what a phony you are

Here is my question:

“”what about KJ making a law designed to prevent some goyish custom that was done in a constitutioanl sound way but with the obvious goal of preventing Goyim from moving in.”

Is that wrong?”

you “replied”

“ubiq, the Jews won in court and had the Eruv ban in Westhampton overturned because the ordinance banning the Eruv was an unconstitutional interference of government in religion. There is no roundabout way to make a ban that is intended to inhibit a religious practice be constitutional by pretending the law was enacted for an allowable secular purpose when the true intent, even if not admitted and outright denied, was religious based discrimination. It is unconstitutional on the face of it.

You are are asking about hypothetical laws that can’t be legal any way you cut it.”

To which I explained why you were simply factually incorrect

“Nope you are wrong. for example in the Tenafly case the court ruled (as I recall) that if they banned ALL postings etc attached to utility poles then they can prevent the Eruv.”

You then didnt actually reply to my question, but claimed you did

“Impossible to be done in a constitutional way, as I explained.”

To which I replied

“And as i replied (and double checked) You are wrong. see Tenafly Eruv Association v. Borough of Tenafly. The judge ruled if done in a general neutral way banning all attachments to an utility pole, an eruv can essentially be banned.

If Westhampton were to institute such a ban now, would they be wrong?

If KJ were to institute a similar ban agaainst bringng trees into houses would they be wrong?”

I’m sorry it is not I who “pretend[ed] to have not received a response”

I researched it and sourced it too