if one goes to Salvation Army functions, it SHOULD be expected that religious observance will be part of the program. They are a religious based group. Nothing wrong with that, and anyone who partakes of their charity should recognize that a religious message will be part of the deal....as with any church. I do choose to make my personal contributions to charitable groups who are not directly connected with churches, hoping that the the main purpose of charity will be served anyway.

If various religious groups cannot enter into contracts with a city like San Francisco because of 'moral' considerations based on religious beliefs, so be it. This article is several years old--I wonder if and how it has been resolved since.

Since one tenet of many religions IS to 'witness' and evangelize and send out missionaries, they will inevitably come into disputes with those who wish not to be bothered or to have public funds and institutions devoted to religious causes....and as I note above, the line gets fuzzy and neither side is happy with most decisions.

I do not see Quakers, Amish/Mennonite and similar groups pressing for more access to public funds and displays....they simply (pun noted) practice their religion and create no waves. Others DO make waves of various heights. Judge Moore of Alabama was just a more extreme example.

It would be a VERY good idea, in my opinion, to explicate the rules clearly, both protecting private religious practices and limiting what is done publicly. (Yeah....I DO know how hard that would be...but to leave it to the changing whims of whatever party or judges are currently in power is to invite swings which will eventually injure the rights of one side or the other)