Reply To: changing neighborhoods and anti-semitism

Joseph

I meant obvious to us.

Did you read Tenafly? It doesnt discuss intention (nor can intention usually be proven. It explictly ruled that if the ordinance where uniformly enforced it could stand (regardless of intent though that isnt explicit since intent of the ordiance wasnt addressed). IT was unconstitutianal becasue it wasnt unifomly enforced not becasue of the intent!

If we gather together and between us decide lets prevent Goyim from moving to town by banning christmas trees. Then enact an ordinace that is applied across the board say to prevent fire hazards. Even though it is obvious to us what are intention is according to tenafly it could theoreticly stand. Much like the anti-utility pole ordinance is ok as long as unifromly enforced. The intent was not addressed in Tenafly. Nor is it easy to prove (even if obvious to us)

I’ll say it again becasue you are so utterly confused on this issue.

Tenfly did not address the intent of the ordinace.

(nor could it have sinc ethe ordinace long predated the eruv).

So yes an ordinace with “the obvious goal of preventing Goyim from moving in” (obvious to us) CAN ABSOLUTLY be enacted in a “constitutianly sound way”

(and even if it couldnt be done, as I provided via example above you are not one to shy away from hypothetical questions so even in your misreading and misapplying of the law you are still a phony)

You dont need to repeat yourself. You have been doing that until know and know you stil havent answered my simple question.

You misinterpretedcase law and misapllied your misinterpretation. That is not an answer.

“In either event I’m done wasting my time. “

Great so stop your trolling. Stop posting blanket incorrect satments both halachic ones and factual ones its annoying and dishonest. IT was dishonest when you did it under multiple screen names often on the same thread and it is dishonest now