Which Ad Was Rejected For Being Too Controversial? | Politically Speaking | Scoop.it

by dhallsd ~ posted august 25,2012



Question of the Day: Which of these three ads were rejected by a transit system in Scranton, Pennsylvania for being too controversial?


Here is some information to consider:


In March 2012, the County of Lackawanna Transit System (COLTS) in Scranton, Pennsylvania rejected one of these three ads for it "does not accept ads which could be deemed controversial or otherwise spark public debate."


The ad rejected may come as a surprise, when you think back to the recent controversy over Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy's announcement that he indeed opposes marriage equality for same-sex partners and acknowledged that the company has donated millions to anti-gay groups, some of which have been labeled hate groups.


If you remember, Cathy's announcement went viral, the LGBT community called for a boycott of Chick-Fil-A, and then opponents of same-sex marriage came to Dan Cathy's defense. His supporters stated that freedom of speech gives him every right to share his beliefs and donate to groups he supports, including those fighting marriage equality and any proposed changes to the legal definition of marriage which is currently in line with his Biblically interpreted definition. For gays and lesbians, they said the boycott was less an attempt to punish Cathy for what he said, but more about the company's large financial support of anti-gay groups and the desire that their dollars are not a part of that.


So which sign was rejected for being too controversial?



Answer: Atheists...http://goo.gl/GTtpR



Surprised? I was. 


Why would this group of citizens be prevented from advertising their non-religious group? And where is the controversy going to come from? Certainly not from the same religious groups that so publically defends their beliefs and the right to vocalize them.


I'm all for free speech, and freedom of religion. I'm also for freedom FROM religion for those that aren't. Many people of faith say "homosexuality is a sin, it's an abhomination, saying it's right there in the Bible, and then defending the right to voice their beliefs." To them I say if these are your beliefs, know that you are free to live by them. But let's be clear, they are YOUR beliefs, not necessarily mine. Don't insist or expect me to live by them. Respect my rights to live my life based on my beliefs, as I respect your rights to live your life based on yours.


This country is based on the Constitution and in it it provides for a Separation of Church and State in hopes of preventing the specific beliefs of any religious group from having undue influence in determining the laws that govern us all. So when we proudly boast our commitment to freedom in this country, are we really just kidding ourselves? Maybe. For when we limit the  freedom of some, we no longer have freedom for all.