Wonder if the church can send the Trump campaign a cease-and-desist order against using pix of Trump in front of their church in any campaign materials.
Christians, like many people, are often motivated more by a sense of outward appearance than actual substance. It reminds me of what my college professor told the class way back in the day: Most people don’t really care about actual subtle policy changes as long as things appear good on the outside. But the moment you mess with the external rituals or visible stuff, you’re in trouble as a leader.
He probably reads Mein Kampf more than the Bible.
Is there a Classics Illustrated version?
The fact that Melania brought the Bible from the White House in a designer handbag is a bit on the nose.
Saw this posted elsewhere but worth sharing:
Trump hold a bible like a nun holds a dick.
No. It’s a public building on a public street.
It’s not a public building.
“Open to the public” does not necessarily mean “public building.” Although it’s on the National Register of Historic Places, and is a National Historic Landmark, as far as I can tell, St. John’s does not belong to the government (either the Federal government, or the District of Columbia). Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I would suspect that it’s the property of the Episcopal Church.
Wrong. RT was talking about pictures of the outside of the building. That can’t be banned. It’s in public.
The entourage was using the church as a backdrop implying endorsement. This was after police chased church personnel off the property. They denied the use of that property without recourse or payment.
Of course, anyone can file a suit about anything, but it wouldn’t get very far. Google has a picture of your house posted online. Can you successfully sue them?
Actually, they don’t. Google will blank a house if asked. However, just because a house is pictured online does not allow someone to profit from that picture.
however, Trump’s thugs forcibly invaded the church and drove the occupants out.
Business Insider.
In your earlier post, you said:
The exterior of the building is visible to the public (and undoubtedly appears in thousands of photographs). But, do you understand that that doesn’t make it a “public building,” any more than Google Street View taking a picture of your house makes your house a public building?
Reports say the church photo op idea came from Ivanka. Maybe she would have preferred a synagogue.
But do you understand that such photographs are perfectly legal to use? The imaginary lawsuit has no basis in fact.
I don’t see any reason why it would be illegal (and I never said otherwise), especially since it looks like Trump stayed on the sidewalk in front of the church.
Crass, grandstanding, and inconsiderate (not to mention what was done to the protesters to clear the path), but the photo op, in and of itself, was probably legal. (Whether it could be grounds for a successful civil suit is another issue, but I don’t think the church would have grounds for a good case, anyway.)
Why you got several corrections from myself and others was your statement, “it’s a public building,” which it very likely is not.
You’re not in any position to “correct” me.
That being said, RT seems to think that a cease and desist order could be possible. It’s not.