Forgive the news outlet being fox on this.
Basically: Schools partner with a Christian organization to give out toys to kids for Christmas. Fairly standard stuff. This other organization had a major problem with the Christian group putting conversion pledges into the toy boxes as it implied to the kids that the toys were not really from the grace of the heart but had strings attached. School folds and cancels the toy drive. Lady pushily asks guy what they're doing to help--the guy says they did help.
So far it seems to me the school and this guy's group were both painfully lazy. The school should have changed to a more neutral status instead of cancelling entirely. And I think this guy's group, instead of taking the school's haughty "Well FINE Grinch we'll just cancel ALL of the Christmas!!" attitude, should have stepped in to make an active effort of a shining example of what could have easily been done in the first place.
Either you care or you don't. Either it's about the kids or it isn't. This guy sort of did the right thing in that he knew those pamphlets were wrong and sending the wrong message. But he felt justified in his causing a toy drive to cancel instead of making the effort to fix it and work with the school.
Why does it always come down to court stuff? What stops this group from reaching out in a more positive advocacy by working along side the school? Their own toy drive would cost far less than court procedures.