TexasCHLforum.com

BigGuy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 06, 2022 8:25 pm At the end of the day, a Judge will make that call. Chances are he won't be strong on physics. But he will have good understanding of the intent of the law. Could you reasonably see the sign or not. If he thinks, you could, you're in trouble.

Hopefully the judge will rule based on the letter of the law, an exact and concrete thing, and not the intent of the law, a vague and interpretive thing at best.

This came up in discussion today with the same points being made and the same conclusion that any lettering on a clear glass or other material is not valid under the current requirement of the law. It may be argued by some, and may be attempted to be enforced and penalized by some, but is not valid if one goes by the specific requirement of the law. Still an interesting discussion and debate.

Clear does not contrast in and of itself. Having white letters on clear glass is similar to having white letters on white posterboard. Yes, there is differentiation and if one looks more closely it is visible. But nothing at all like red or blue or black letters on white posterboard. That is the requirement of the law, contrasting colors - plural, and since clear does not qualify as a color scientifically it can't qualify as meeting the requirements of the law. But I understand others who see it differently. And it's an interesting and fun discussion.

I'm sure it would be a battle but I would argue it based on the science of the color spectrum. And I would judge it the same way if I was one of the twelve.

Flightmare wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:28 pm

LDB415 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:08 pm When one looks at the electromagnetic spectrum clear is not a color on the spectrum. Therefore any 30.06/30.07 signage composed of any color letters on a glass background does not have contrasting colors as it has only one color, the color of the letters. It makes that posting invalid. Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, just exercising facts and common sense. But that's my story and I'm sticking to it whether defendant or juror.

I agree with you that it should definitely be easier to see, and therefore better notice to those of us who carry that said business does not want our dollars.

However, wouldn't "absence of color" and "color" be contrasting by definition? There may be some prospective jurors out there who find that while text on a clear glass door meets with the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law.

My 2 cents, and IANAL.

I suppose "absence of color" and "color" are contrasting however that does not satisfy the requirement of the law which says:

(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height;  and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

with the key being part (ii) which requires contrasting colors

Since clear isn't a color the fact they contrast should have no meaning as it doesn't satisfy the requirement of the law. YMMV

When one looks at the electromagnetic spectrum clear is not a color on the spectrum. Therefore any 30.06/30.07 signage composed of any color letters on a glass background does not have contrasting colors as it has only one color, the color of the letters. It makes that posting invalid. Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, just exercising facts and common sense. But that's my story and I'm sticking to it whether defendant or juror.