LINCOLNVILLE, Maine — A woman who said she wanted to protect gay youths was charged Wednesday with the unlawful removal of two political signs opposed to gay marriage.
Chief Ron Young of the Lincolnville Police Department said that he had been keeping a watchful eye out on the cluster of campaign signs placed at the intersection of routes 173 and 52 at the Petunia Pump, after a couple of signs for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney disappeared. So on Wednesday, when he saw a young man carrying two “No on 1” signs away from the intersection, he pulled up and asked what he was doing.
“He said, ‘I’m taking these signs down,’” Young said Thursday.
A citizen initiative on the Nov. 6 statewide ballot, Question 1 seeks to overturn Maine’s ban on same-sex marriage.
When the chief asked the teen if the signs belonged to him, he said no, but that he didn’t agree with the sentiment they were espousing. Then Rachael Hendrick, 37, of Lincolnville got out of a car parked nearby and said that she had told her nephew to take the signs down.
“She made the comment that kids who are homosexuals are committing suicide because of the signs,” Young said.
Hendrick initially was somewhat argumentative with the police chief, saying that the signs were placed on school property — they were not — and that children see them every day when going to the nearby elementary school on the school bus.
“She met me at the town office and I read the law to her,” Young said.
Hendrick took total responsibility for removing the two signs and received the civil summons for the infraction, which carries a maximum fine of $250. She is scheduled to appear at Belfast District Court in December, Young said.
Good……..fine her the max!
What else is new with the intolerant bigots who would steal a political sign. Whats next goosestepping thugs breaking windows of the people who don’t agree with everything they do? Such a sad commentary:(
This from the party who claimes conservatives are intolerant. We’re only intolerant if we don’t share your views. Bigots, yes, correct.
Another anti-gay WHINES that his intended victims are “intolerant” of his attacks.
Some creepy anti-gay minister in Minnesota also just called those who support marriage equality there that same hate speech. Anti-gays have a special gift for HATRED.
Well this is not helpful. I have to admit I think about this a lot as I drive by signs, as I am sure many people do. But it is stealing, and wrong. This type of action will not help a bit and detracts from the important issue at hand. Just let the signs be as painful as it is to look at them!
Look what she is teaching her nephew.
This is a sick lady .
Yeah….great mentor for her nephew isn’t she. Sheeesh.
yes you got that right
Good.
Anyone messing with anyone else’s signs is now on notice. Various signs may be annoying, but it is a $250 fine to take or vandalize them. Hands off. We only have to put up with the eyesore for 12 more days… plus removal time.
By removal time you mean the next 3 months, correct?
Must be removed within 7 days of the election. (Unless you’re Poliquin, apparently… I’m still seeing his signs from the June primary!). ;-)
If all the signs are gone within 7 days I will write a check for 5.00 dollars to the charity of your choice.
“All” gone would be practically impossible. I’m usually pleasantly surprised at how fast many campaigns get them down. Some campaigns let them linger the full week after election day to squeak out that little extra bit of name recognition. I personally think that’s pathetic, but it is done.
I WAS going to vote yes on Question 1
because i could care less about gay marriage and i am sick of hearing about the issue
NOW I AM GOING TO VOTE “NO” ON QUSTION 1
This is what has changed your vote? I kind of doubt you were ever a “Yes”….
Denial of free speech is an excellent reason to vote no. This case exposes the character of the homosexual movement.
This is not a conspiracy of the “homosexual” movement. This is the actions of one misguided individual. One of my acquaintances is a LGBT rights attorney. They are mortified when things like this happen, because it gives people like you one more reason to demonize all LBGTs and perpetuate their oppression.
“to demonize all LBGTs and perpetuate their oppression.”
That is the purpose of everything anti-gays post.
Thank you for your support.
That lady is not a “homosexual,” she is an AMERICAN. It’s a shame you are an anti-gay instead of an American.
I call Bulls***
Sure, sure.
Ah yes, that old narrative of “I was a supporter, but because of this incident, I’ve changed my mind”. Could you at least be original? You never were a YES supporter.
You’re correct. Anti-gays always lie.
I remember 4 years ago when people who opposed gay marriage were in the majority. At that time the supporters of gay marriage were the “villains” messing with marriage. This year, it appears the majority of people are for gay marriage, hence, people who are trying to protect traditional marriage are the “villains”. I’m guessing it passes.
You’re not a very good guesser.
Now if this was someone removing signs endorsing yes on one there would be multiple comments here calling this person a bigot, a hater, infringing on someones constitutional rights, and I’m sure wanting to know why an arrest wasn’t made. Although I don’t care for same sex marriage I was going to vote yes in hopes of not having to deal with this issue again and prove that I do not hate nor am I any type of bigot. However after the many sickening attitudes of the majority of supporters, the name calling, accusations of bigotry and the comparison of ssm to the civil rights of african americans, during a dark period of American history, I will be voting no along with many others. The supporters of ssm just don’t get it. You will not recieve support for your cause by name calling negative accusations, and hypocrisy. NO on one! I think its time to put this to rest once and for all.
I support SSM but I don’t support what this woman did at all and I hope she is hit with a stiff fine. I could call her a few choice names but my comment would get removed so I won’t.
With that said if you think voting no is going to put a rest to it once and for all you are sadly mistaken. If you truly want to put it to rest once and for all you would vote yes, not no.
No I’m pretty sure I want it to be put to rest and no I will not be voting yes for the reasons I have stated.
I think the reality TV shows like The Bachelor make a mockery of marriage, but I’m not seeking to deny anyone access to civil marriage as a result of the behavior some people exhibit.
because it’s legal…
Well of course it’s legal to hold television shows like that.
Vote Yes & put it to rest? I hardly think so. Anyone who votes yes to get it off future ballots are kidding themselves, it will still not be enough, they will have something else to throw the words bigot, descrimination, prejudice towards we who are not on their team. Don’t open up this can of worms & think it will go away.
Yep, look what happened— first we free the slaves, then we give women the right to vote, we allow interracial marriage and now yet another minority group wants to be treated equally under our laws!
Next thing you know, we’ll be fulfilling the promise of our Constitution to even more Americans! The horror.
EXCELLENT POST!!!!
Where does the constitution say you can marry anyone you want? Don’t run your mouth with no facts to back it up.
The Constitution’s 14th Amendment demands we extend protections equally to Americans, and that includes the 1,100+ benefits and privileges extended by laws based on marital status. There is no justification for this discrimination, as courts have found whenever they are asked to examine this issue.
Go ahead and list all these alleged rights and since we all know the medical info ,hospital visit thing and leave insurance and property can and is allowed equally to everyone.
No need to bring up the big $300.00 death benefit, Also please name hospital and doctors who denied anyone of the above whose lovers included them as person of contact
Cause I haven’t heard of one lawsuit in Maine
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
How about 12 CATEGORIES? From a US Government document…
Category 1: social security and related programs
This category includes the major federal health and welfare programs, particularly those considered entitlements, such as Social Security retirement and disability benefits, food stamps, welfare, and Medicare and Medicaid. Most of these laws are found in Title 42 of the United States Code, The Public Health and Welfare; food stamp legislation is in Title 7, Agriculture.
Category 2: veterans’ benefits
Veteran’s benefits, which are codified in Title 38 of the United States Code, including pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, nursing home care, right to burial in veterans’ cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing. Husbands or wives of veterans have many rights and privileges by virtue of the marital relationship.
Category 3: taxation
The distinction between married and unmarried status is pervasive in federal tax law; this is one of the largest categories, with 179 provisions.
Category 4: federal civilian and military service benefits
This category includes laws dealing with current and retired federal officers and employees, members of the Armed Forces, elected officials, and judges, in which marital status is a factor. Typically these laws address the various health, leave, retirement, survivor, and insurance benefits provided by the United States to those in federal service and their families.
Category 5: employment benefits and related laws
Marital status comes into play in many different ways in federal laws relating to employment in the private sector. Most such laws appear in Title 29 of the United States Code, Labor. However, others are in Title 30, Mineral Lands and Mining; Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters; and Title 45, Railroads.
Category 6: immigration, naturalization, and aliens
This category includes laws governing the conditions under which noncitizens may enter and remain in the United States, be deported, or become citizens. Most are found in Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.
Category 7: Indians
The indigenous peoples of the United States have long had a special legal relationship with the federal government through treaties and laws that are classified to Title 25, Indians. Various laws set out the rights to tribal property of white men marrying Indian women, or of Indian women marrying white men, the evidence that is required, and the rights of children born of marriages between white men and Indian women.
Category 8: trade, commerce, and intellectual property
This category includes provisions concerning foreign or domestic business and commerce, from the following titles of the United States Code: Bankruptcy, Title 11; Banks and Banking, Title 12; Commerce and Trade, Title 15; Copyrights, Title 17; and Customs Duties, Title 19.
Category 9: financial disclosure and conflict of interest
Federal law imposes obligations on Members of Congress, employees or officers of the federal government, and members of the boards of directors of some government-related or government-chartered entities, to prevent actual or apparent conflicts of interest. These individuals are required to disclose publicly certain gifts, interests, and transactions. Many of these requirements, which are found in 16 different titles of the United States Code, apply also to the individual’s spouse.
Category 10: crimes and family violence
This category includes laws that implicate marriage in connection with criminal justice or family violence. The nature of these provisions varies greatly. Some deal with spouses as victims of crimes, others with spouses as perpetrators. These laws are found primarily in Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, but some, dealing with crime prevention and family violence, are in Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
Category 11: loans, guarantees, and payments in agriculture
Under many federal loan programs, a spouse’s income, business interests, or assets are taken into account for purposes of determining a person’s eligibility to participate in the program. In other instances, marital status is a factor in determining the amount of federal assistance to which a person is entitled, or the repayment schedule.
Category 12: federal natural resources and related laws
Federal law gives special rights to spouses in connection with a variety of transactions involving federal lands and other federal property. These transactions include purchase and sale of land by the federal government and lease by the government of water and mineral rights.
Category 13: miscellaneous
This category comprises laws that do not fit readily in any of the other categories and that did not warrant a separate category. It is a heterogeneous mix of provisions from 14 titles of the United States Code.
Too bad that some people will consider that post as too wordy to bother comprehending, let alone reading! As simple a concept as it is, you are banging your head against the wall in your attempts to change anyone’s mind. Frustrating, really…
I rarely get frustrated; I have the calm assurance that civil marriage will be available to same-sex couples nationwide one day. It’s clearly inevitable when you look at the opinion polls broken down by age group.
I share this information not to change Scintillate’s mind (after all, this is the person who has a beef with marriage benefits in general), but rather to show what the reasoned rebuttal is to their rhetoric. I write for those who aren’t posting, but just reading through the comments.
We know we can’t change the minds of anti-gays, it is part of their mental disorder, but whenever anti-gay lies appear, it is necessary for Americans who believe in equality to post facts that counter anti-gay lies.
protection and equality has already been extended to all americans.
can “minorities” vote? join the workforce in whichever field they desire? be protected by the same laws that you and I are protected by?
The answer is yes.
minorities are not oppressed, they have more privileges and laws to protect them than any other group.
No, gays and lesbians cannot enter into civil marriage, and there are many, many legal benefits and privileges that are only available via civil marriage marital status.
That is what we are asking for— to be treated equally under the law as Americans and Mainers.
I’m voting YES on question 1 in November, because ALL Maine families deserve the opportunity to protect the lives they build together with civil marriage.
Seriously? You still don’t get the 1,100 benefits that Convivial is talking about? Take a lot less time googling it than you’ve spent complaining of what you have no idea of. Anyone that doesn’t understand an issue is a danger at the booth.
No, LGBT Americans DO NOT have the SAME right to legal marriage as mixed-sex couples do. The Iowa State Supreme Court unanimously established marriage equality in April 2009, and this is their answer to “You have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else”:
“It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class-their sexual orientation.”
http://www.iowacourtsonline.org/Supreme_Court/Varnum_v_Brien/Supreme_Court_Ruling/
Read “Loving vs. Virginia,” viper. We ALL have a Constitutionally protected “fundamental right” to marry the person of our choice.
You are correct; it will NEVER be enough.
The problem is, the people of Maine did put it to rest. It’s going to be driven down our throats until we vote in favor. I never will.
As soon as it passes…..and it will……ministers all over the state will be charged with hate crimes if they even read the Biblical comment on SSM. Sad. I guess first amendment speech is legal only when you agree with the mindless masses.
No one will care what some anti-gay hate cult that pretends to be a church says once equality is established. Stop trying to pretend anti-gays are the aggrieved party here. No one cooked up a Hate Vote in 2009 to take away anti-gays’ rights.
Oppressed minority groups generally do not give up until they have achieved equality.
oppressed minority groups?
are you serious?
gays and lesbians have more rights than heterosexuals by a long shot!
same with blacks, muslims, etc.
liberals have created a special class, complete with special laws and special privileges for so called “oppressed minorities”
Well, this is an outright lie!
Name one single right that gays and lesbians have that does not also protect your choice of religious views.
If a person assaults another person that is not gay, it is merely assualt.
If a person assaults a homosexual, then it is a hate crime and punishable by more severe sentences.
Same as if they assault someone because they are Jewish, or Muslim, or Christian.
There are no laws that protect gays and lesbians that do not also protect citizens for their choice of religious views.
If someone assaults someone else because of that person’s religion, it is THE SAME HATE CRIME. You LIED, Ancient.
The problem here is that signs were removed in an effort to shut freedom of speech.
I don’t give a frick how you vote, but it’s nice to know that others can’t be shut up by your ilk here! :)
It does not matter what side you fall on,freedom of speech is what separates us and makes us the greatest nation ever formed,to deny another American their freedom is evil.I might not agree with you but like many before me I will fight to the last drop to protect yours and my right to exercise it.
Agreed.
I know! How dare people think that it is okay to discriminate against people and only allow a certain group to reap the benefits of marriage!
p.s. this happens on both sides of the aisle…
http://www.14news.com/story/19897092/wife-of-posey-co-candidate-accused-of-stealing-political-signs
http://www.nbc12.com/story/19854701/thieves-steal-obama-signs-and-security-cameras
http://www.wfsb.com/story/19866490/campaign-signs-missing-in-oxford
It appears this is a common problem, and there is no place for it, but I think it is fair to say that no one group is restricted to this type of pitiful behavior.
These signs, when placed on public land, should be treated like any other discarded item. If it is freedom of speech that allows someone to place the sign, isn’t it the same freedom of speech that allows the sign to be flattened or removed?
I was going to “like” this comment, but I need to think about it. You may have something….
No, because the person who placed the signs has ownership of the signs. They are not “discarded.”
I’m glad the PD was watching. Nobody should be allowed to take signs that don’t belong to them. It’s a major violation of First Amendment rights, it’s illegal, and anyone who tampers with or takes signs should be on notice.
————————
Tampering
It is illegal to tamper with political signs unless someone has placed one on your property without permission, according Maine’s secretary of state’s office. Political sign vandalism incurs a fine of up to $250.
Read more: Maine Political Sign Laws | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6943196_maine-political-sign-laws.html#ixzz2AMNek6Ji
http://www.penbaypilot.com/article/no-1-sign-removal-nets-lincolnville-woman-250-summons/4874
“The unauthorized removal or destruction of political signs is a
civil violation under Maine law (Title 23 MRSA, Section 1917-A), and may
carry a fine of up to $250. Specifically, the law states that “a
person who takes, defaces or disturbs a lawfully placed sign bearing
political messages relating to a general election, primary election or
referendum commits a civil violation for which a forfeiture of up to
$250 may be adjudged.”
Because there owned by someone there should be a fine for not taking them down after the elections too.
I thought you were going to stay on the PPH.
What does the law say ? they can do it . So the way you talk that anyone that does not like a sign they can take it down ?
Rachael Hendrick if you happen to read these comments. I support SSM but you are not helping the cause and you are teaching your Nephew are terrible lesson. Great job on being a disgrace towards those that support SSM and even a greater job being a disgrace towards your Nephew.
“She made the comment that kids who are homosexuals are committing suicide because of the signs,” Young said. I haven’t heard of any.
Just wishful thinking…
Homosexual teens are five times more likely to commit suicide than their hetero peers. She is right about the stat, wrong for taking down the sign.
The study author, Mark Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University, told Reuters, however, that no studies have been able to pinpoint the root cause of suicidal tendencies in gay teens. See:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study-gay-teens-five-times-more-likely-to-attempt-suicide/
“lifesitenews” is an anti-gay website. Fail.
Not because of the signs. Did you read the quote from her?
And you won’t read that at the anti-gay hate cult websites.
Seems like the “yes” side of this issue is harboring SOME pretty intolerant people who think the rules don’t apply to them. And yet they accuse the other side of being intolerant. Perhaps they don’t understand the fundamentals of Democracy?
All sides harbor intolerant people and that fact will never change and it doesn’t matter what the issue is. You will always have people who take it to far and this woman is one of them. I’m willing to bet the majority of those that support SSM do not support her actions. I sure as hell don’t.
Yes Kevin, but surely even you can appreciate the irony….or should I say hypocrisy……coming from the Tolerant Ones.
No, I cannot because one woman doing something dumb doesn’t represent the group but a lot of people want to make it seem that way.
Let’s just say that in the light of the many, many YES signs that have been stolen, anti-gays will milk this one situation.
Yes, whine again that anti-gays’ intended victims are “intolerant” of these efforts to hurt LGBT.
Perhaps both sides of this issue are made up of all sorts of people, and most are behaving well through the political process?
I am all for allowing civil marriage for same-sex couples, but I wouldn’t remove anyone’s signs opposed to it. I think they do a good job of encouraging supporters of the issue to get out there and VOTE!
I am voting YES on 1 in November, because ALL Maine families deserve the opportunity to protect the lives they build together (and the children they raise together) with civil marriage.
I guess you haven’t heard of the dozens of “Yes on 1” that have gone missing in Washington County.
Unfortunately, there are a few intolerant people on all sides of any issue.
The “YES” side has NEVER cooked up a Hate Vote to deprive anti-gays of equality. Spare us that constant anti-gay WHINE that your intended victims are “intolerant” of your attempts to hurt LGBT Americans.
Wow, really? Allowing more Maine families the opportunity to protect the lives they build together is demented?
Very typical of the left. Yawn.
Please document that NO “Yes” signs have been stolen.
Still no proof, huh, illegal?
Typical lincolnville actions from their citizens…………don’t like someone so commit theft of the signs.
Congratulations! You win the prize for the most idiotic comment on this article. The judges want to point out that your use of conclusions not supported by ANY evidence and a wonderful non-sequitur were strong factors in your win. Thanks for playing!
Got to you didn’t I. Go steal some signs. ROFLMAO.
If someone kills themselves over a sign, they’ve got way more issues than being gay.
You are correct – kind of. I believe that young people don’t have an issue themselves with being gay until the intolerance, hate and bullying push them to suicide. These signs are just a reminder that gays and lesbians are considered second class by many in our society.
That being said, I do not condone taking any signs down until after the election. Signs from both sides and all political parties seem to be up one day, down the next and then replaced again. What a waste of plastic, cardboard and time.
Is there something wrong with wishing to protect the sanctity and meaning of a millennium old tradition?
why do people think that “Marriage” should be changed to include same sex couples?
can’t they come up with some different word? a different union instead of trying to change an ancient tradition?
I don’t consider gays and lesbians second class citizens, I don’t care what they do, but I believe that marriage is between a man and woman, as it has been since the beginning of written civilization.
We do have a different word: civil marriage.
Seriously, I never heard any outcry when other definitions of marriage cropped up, such as the marriage wall of a modular home.
Historically, we have seen the same opposition for civil unions that we see for civil marriage, pretending that civil unions would be a-ok doesn’t reflect the reality— that the National Organization for Marriage, the GOP, and even Presidential candidate Mitt Romney all publicly oppose civil unions that have the same rights as civil marriage.
But for the record, I would be just fine if we eliminated civil marriage as the term, and changed it to civil unions for everyone, gay and straight alike. That would pass Constitutional scrutiny, and be equal treatment under our laws.
Attacking loving, committed same gender Mainer couples by denying them equality will NOT “protect” ANYTHING.
I’m not attacking them, the people of maine aren’t attacking them.
stop being so dramatic.
Denying them the right to legal marriage hurts them. Don’t try to hide the HATEFUL and HURTFUL intent of anti-gays. We all know better.
You are correct – kind of. I believe that young people don’t have an issue themselves with being gay until the intolerance, hate and bullying push them to suicide. These signs are just a reminder that gays and lesbians are considered second class by many in our society.
That being said, I do not condone taking any signs down until after the election. Signs from both sides and all political parties seem to be up one day, down the next and then replaced again. What a waste of plastic, cardboard and time.
Why don’t we just get together and vote to remove those stupid signs all together? If anyone votes for or against a candidate or a question because of a sign on the side of the road, maybe they shouldn’t be voting.
This is what “public funded education” has become…homosexual brainwash centers! I say get rid of both!
How do you want to “get rid” of your fellow Americans who are LGBT–GENOCIDE?
I wish somebody would steal EVERY single sign out there!! I wish putting up election signs was against the law. The practice is a bane on the environment, is a needless waste of money, and gives one to believe that people vote based on how many signs they see for any particular issue or candidate. If people cannot educate themselves on issues and candidates and then vote their conscience WITHOUT having signs to influence them, they should NOT vote!!! DOWN WITH ALL POLITICAL SIGNS!!!
see, that’s the problem with liberals.
It’s okay to have an opinion, as long as it’s not against theirs.
That’s the problem with blanket generalizations— they’re always wrong.
all stereotypes are based in truth.
Not this one, pure right-wing deception…
I liken political signs to garbage along the roadside. Legal litter. Getting pissed about a sign is childish. Ignore them. :
We pay some “pretty hefty taxes” on real estate that is a target for political signs. It might be against the law to take them down, but that’s exactly what we do when we don’t agree with them. If you can see us doing it, then I will write a check for “the charity of your choice” for $5.00. Thanks Kevin ; )
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and though I get sad seeing the No on 1 signs, I respect them. I have had many of my Yes on 1 signs taken down and have had others become sandwiched between two other signs for Conservative candidates. I just quietly replace the Yes on 1 signs or move them for better viewing.
I am glad of one thing…whoever the graphic designer was for the No on 1 campaign should be commended. One cannot read them going past as there is too much information on the signs. Yay for the Yes on 1 campaign!!
Agreed. Earlier I said that the “No on 1” sign designer should be fired. No, they should be commended.
the amount of signs everywhere is annoying.
why are there like 10 of the same sign in the same intersection it’s stupid and distracting to have 25 signs for 3 people in one place.
Anti-gays are especially desperate this year.
I think that the person or person’s who placed the signs should have to show up to file the complaint. There is currently no proof that anyone was “damaged’ by this act.
Apparently “The Tolerant Ones” aren’t tolerant of free speech or the democratic process.
So we are all of one hive mind that have no differences in personality, opinion. or personal character? That’s as inaccurate a stereotype as saying all Catholic priests are child molesters.
Personally, I would never touch someone else’s political sign, because that’s just wrong. I can disagree with someone without silencing their speech.
It’s just hilarious that anti-gays are acted like they are the aggrieved party here, whining that their intended victims are “intolerant” of anti-gays’ efforts to HURT loving, committed same gender Mainer couples.
Actually, the intersection at Petunia Pump is Rt. 235 and Rt. 52/173.
What is the fine for stealing eye pollution these days? Why didn’t she take ALL the signs, as opposed to just the ones she disagrees with?
If she had, I’m sure she would have gotten applause.
I would have passed the hat to help her with the fine, if she had taken ALL of the eye sores.
Freedom of speech for everyone, but only if I agree with you!
So is anyone one else concerned she “used” a MINOR to commit a crime?? She KNEW sending her minor nephew out there, that he would be less likely to be caught or charged, but this one bit her in the tushy! She should have child endangerment charges tagged onto it as well! Just Sayin’
You seem so very desperate to make a mountain out of two Hate Signs.
I don’t care about signs, but what I do care about is that if it was any other crime in the same “vandalizing” category, and a minor was “used” in perpetrating it, there would have been other charges applied! It is NEVER ok to “use” a minor to commit a crime, ANY crime!
It was sad she had her nephew collect the Hate Signs, but Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church forces his grandchildren to hold signs that say “G*d Hates F*gs.” Please show those children even more love, because they are in a far, far worse situation than this young boy.
Do you feel somehow vindicated, anti-gays? After all these years when you claimed you were “attacked” for attacking loving, committed same gender American couples, at long last you caught someone… removing your dirty Hate Signs? Is this all you have, anti-gays?