Another FB Post, Indicating the City's Position (screenshot)

Like the others, this one continued after I captured this screenshot.  I haven't included all posts, but my response (my last, if I can help it) is below.

David Suhor I'm not going to debate this on FB anymore. No one's minds will be changed. But, just to be clear, I didn't initiate this. I am responding to a complaint from a group that rented space in the park. They know I care about Establishment Clause issues in local government, so they reached out to me. I tried for weeks to get a meeting with (or answers from) the P&R director. Responses were non-existent or terse at best. No meeting, though. Recently, I tried the City Attorney and the Mayor. I've suggested several compromises that would make this cross less biased and problematic. No answer.
I have NO desire to get involved in a legal fight. BUT, whatever the popular opinion, there is clearly a church/state violation here. It may not rise to the level of bothering you, but it's there and it bothers some folks. I see it as similar to the Confederate flag, but without the public outcry or historical context. This area of civics is my passion, so I'll enlist all resources available to resolve it in a Constitutional manner. 
In the end, I believe compromise (convert to anchor or a removable cross/not year-round) is better. But that's not the position the City seems to be taking. They know this could create a costly (and losing) legal battle, but choose not to act unless faced with a lawsuit... then they will give up park land to avoid it (a failure as strategy, BTW). Is it worth spending tax dollars on such a losing cause? For the sake of Christian privilege? I think not. So I hope they'll reconsider. 
Rally all you want. Gather pitchforks and subtly threaten me on FB, Ashli. Pray or try some other ineffective means. I will work within the law - for our Constitution, for the separation of church and state, and for local government to practice religious neutrality, as they should.

2 hrs · Like · 3