OK, allow me to stick my big nose into this...
I have several problems with this. The first is summed up in, I believe, the third paragraph:
Members of the "Philadelphia 11" were arrested Oct. 10, 2004, after quoting the Bible and expressing their views against homosexual behavior
on a public street during "OutFest," a publicly funded celebration of homosexuality.Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
'Publicly funded' means that the 'celebration' was paid for by everyone in the city, not just those who agreed with the message it was conveying.
That is wrong in the first place, as it opens the event up to a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. In other words, it
indicates that the city is bestowing preferential rights on this particular group as opposed to other groups (like the protesters) who had no such
celebration of their agenda paid by those who might oppose it.
Were this a private event, an argument could be made that the event was outside the bounds of legal protest. But since the event was on public land
and was publicly funded, it is government-sanctioned speech, and is therefore more-so subject to the rights of others to protest it.
The Philly 11 were therefore practicing freedom of speech by presenting a dissenting viewpoint at a government-sanctioned, government-sponsored public
The issue of the permit is moot, because the event was not conducted by a private group, but rather was government-sanctioned and
government-sponsored. No further governmental approval is needed.
The conduct of the Pink Angels was intimidating and threatening, and attempted to deny the Philly 11 access to the event.
The conduct of the Philly 11 was not, according to the information I have seen thus far, intimidating nor threatening.
Therefore, I say this is a load of legalistic pandering, and the case should be appealed to the SCOTUS. If found in violation of the Philly 11's
civil rights, the city of Philadelphia should lose their charter and every individual involved should be subject to criminal arrest for malfeasance of
I personally have no problem with someone else's sexual preference, as long as they do not flaunt it in my face (and in return I attempt to not
flaunt mine in someone else's face). I have no intention of being in someone else's bedroom period. I have no problem with equality regardless of
sexual orientation. I do have a problem when any group of people are given preferential treatment under the law.
I am a Christian, but this is not a gay vs. Christian case. This is a right vs. wrong according to the laws of the land case. It will become a gay vs.
Christian situation as long as one group (either one) is held to be subject to the whims of the other.
One more note: it is not possible to force a belief on anyone. That is not even an argument. Your beliefs are your beliefs, as my beliefs are my