Splendour will require a fellow Christian to tell her the same thing before she will accept it as fact.

This is about as a legit a reason as I think you could have. I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this.

The ironic thing is that the people that are having an issue with this are the same people that would pitch a fit if there was verses from the Koran posted in a bank, lol.

This thread has run its course.

It's b.s.

Nobody could ever have an ethnic or religious identity if fair lending the way the Federal Reserve interpreted it was to apply.

Now who is going to give up his identity to ensure equal credit opportunity?

Are you going to give up your identity? Can you even give up your identity if you want to?

It was pure b.s. based on an individual's misinterpretation or over extension of other minority groups' freedom at the expense of the larger group. The Fed over stepped its authority. If no act of discrimination occurred then there was no abuse to regulate.

Some issues have to be handled after an abuse occurs. You can't just go around and deny people the expression of their identity. That's potentially a bigger civil rights abuse than the one or two people who could feel intimidated. But its a storm in a teacup because there was no allegation by any individual of feeling discriminated or intimidated. Why should they allege discrimination or intimidation when no one asks you for your religion in your credit application? They should only feel it if they are paranoid or hoping to start a conflict from their own personal motives or prejudices.

Should I be allowed to hang a flag in my office?

It depends on connotation and principle, or in simpler terms; which flag and who tells me yes/no seen in conjunction with ownership of said office.

The discussion about who is often a tad political in nature, but suffice to say that I think we in the west generally speaking prefer individual (and ownership decisions) decisions on such matters as much as possible.

Nor is Christmas, religious or not, a controversial matter in our countries, and this is regardless if some individuals find it controversial. Yes, the state and church being separate is indeed a very important principle in many western countries, but I do not think an office worker hanging Santa Claus or Jesus on his wall is pushing religious overlording of the populace as part of his/her agenda.

Or to say it flat out; There are more important issues to consider. I'm sure we can allow people to have a little color, even if grey is safer.

I don't hear you disputing that "the Federal Reserve officials never thought this was a separation of church and state issue. It was strictly an issue of the fair lending act."

Therefore, this isn't a reply to anything I said, and my correction of your incorrect statement stands.

Don't know what you think you gain by this.

I already responded above.

If you think some unknown person's hypothetical equal opportunity rights supercede a group of people's actual pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness I have nothing more to say except that I think equal opportunity of credit is subservient to life, liberty and happiness and there was no rights violation just somebody who went looking for a reason to harass some Christians because he didn't like them having their life, liberty and happiness because they might be different from someone else's.

I know we go through this every time, but you haven't comprehended my post at all. I was making no judgement on the case. All I stated were the facts of the case. Facts that you linked to but then contradicted.

Just because you hit the 'reply' button below my post doesn't mean you're replying to my post. You have to address the actual content for it to be a reply.

Splendour sees every reply to her posts by non-Christians as being personal attacks. It doesn't make for very productive discussions in this forum.