The twist in this case is that it's a Christian suing, saying that a Native American artwork used on Oklahoma's current plate has an clear religious message, and he doesn't like that at all.
And y'know what? I'm fine with that. Nobody should be compelled by the state to display a religious icon or message that they find personally offensive or at odds with their own faith (or lack thereof). While Christians are a majority, that should First Amendment principle should protect them as much as anyone else (even if they less frequently need such protection).
Appeals court: Christian can sue Oklahoma over Native American license plate | The Raw Story
Judge Paul J. Kelly Jr., appointed by President George H.W. Bush, wrote in his dissent, “Mr. Cressman has connected the image on Oklahoma’s license plate to the sculpture and that sculpture to a Native American legend. He asserts that the license plate promotes ‘pantheism, panentheism, …
Yes, by all means let him object. And if his case has merit, decide in his favor. All very legitimate. Then the next time an Oklahoma Christian tries to defend prayers at the city council or the 10 commandments on school grounds…
I agree in principle, but I also agree with the dissenting judge that it's a bit of a stretch. I had to read the article to know why this was purportedly religious, and something tells me it's not generally common knowledge.
That may very well be, +Brittany Constable — it may be a poor example, and may be thrown out. But I welcome it being heard, even if I don't personally take any offense at it.