From our friends at the American Freedom Law Center:
As you are probably aware, there is an ongoing controversy between homosexual activists and the private sponsors of the St. Patrick’s Day parades in Boston and New York. The controversy began as far back as 1992 when the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, a private association of individuals elected from various veterans groups which had a permit from the City of Boston to organize and conduct the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, refused a place in the 1993 event to a homosexual activist group—the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston (GLIB)—which was formed for the purpose of marching in the parade in order to express its members’ pro-homosexual message—a message that the private sponsors of the parade did not want conveyed during this family event. (N.B. The private sponsors did not allow any political messages during the parades).
Refusing to take “no” for an answer, GLIB did what every other
pro-homosexual group does when it doesn’t get its way. It filed a lawsuit
in state court, alleging that the denial of its application to march violated,
inter alia, a state law prohibiting discrimination on account of sexual
orientation in places of public accommodation. Bear in mind, GLIB wasn’t
asserting a constitutional right of any sort as against the government.
GLIB wanted to force a private organization (the Council) to accept its
message and, consequently, the immoral lifestyle of its members. Sound
familiar? Not surprising, the Massachusetts state trial court found such
a violation and ordered the Council to include GLIB in the parade. And
the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (Massachusetts’ version of a state
supreme court, which, by the way, was the first to rule that same-sex
“marriage” was a right as a matter of state constitutional law) affirmed.
Again, no real surprise there.
The case, however, made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And in a unanimous 1995 decision delivered by liberal Justice David Souter (Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston) the high court held that the state courts’ application of the Massachusetts public accommodations law to require private citizens who organize a parade to include among the marchers a group imparting a message that the organizers do not wish to convey violates the First Amendment.
So it is that when the Mayors of Boston and New York refuse to march in a parade because the private parade organizers are exercising their fundamental right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, these politicians are taking a stand against freedom (and against morality). And the same is true for the beer companies (Guinness, Sam Adams, and Heineken) that have boycotted these events.
The case, however, made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And in a unanimous 1995 decision delivered by liberal Justice David Souter (Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston) the high court held that the state courts’ application of the Massachusetts public accommodations law to require private citizens who organize a parade to include among the marchers a group imparting a message that the organizers do not wish to convey violates the First Amendment.
So it is that when the Mayors of Boston and New York refuse to march in a parade because the private parade organizers are exercising their fundamental right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, these politicians are taking a stand against freedom (and against morality). And the same is true for the beer companies (Guinness, Sam Adams, and Heineken) that have boycotted these events.
No comments:
Post a Comment