What business, what right does any government body have to be making official condemnations of religious rallies?
Last Friday and Saturday, March 24-25, a fellow named Ron Luce and his Texas-based organization Teen Mania held a big old evangelical Christian youth rally at the AT&T Park in San Francisco. They had something like 25,000 folks there as part of a "reverse rebellion" tour. He wants to turn loose a bunch of new youth ministers to help the homeless, evangelize for Christ, and so on. Typical Christian stuff.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Al Barger
Jet, I'm sorry for your bad life experiences, but your hysterical emotional response does not constitute reason or right just because you personally have had a bad time.
It's not rational or just to project your bad experiences onto every social conservative of any stripe. These kids in Frisco were not there to beat up queers. I've seen NO reports of ANY of that group making any comments anything LIKE the kind of things you're talking about in #21- and you KNOW the SF media would have gone apeshit blaring the quotes or video if they could get even one teenage foot soldier to say something stupid.
Plus, I find it difficult to believe some of what you're saying here. Every day you see crazy people on the corner ranting about queers? What TV evangelist is preaching that it's God's will to kill all fags?
Now Phelps is a jerk, completely different than these people in SF. He's pushing the limits of tolerance right up to the line. For one thing, he's not having his own rallies to speak his piece- no one would come. Instead, he's inflicting himself as much as possible on someone else's most solemn and personal events. He's walking right up to the line of absolute harassment, and arguably crossing over it.
A soldier's funeral is not a presidential speech, and it's nonsense for people to have to elbow past this fool to get into the funeral home to pay their respects. Wouldn't hurt my feelings if he were required to stay X hundreds of yards away from the property- and that's whether he's protesting a soldier or Matthew Shepherd.
One more thing with your hysteria here. You're going on about who am I to judge you and wave my finger in your face. Where in the world did you get that from? That's not anything to do with anything I say or believe. Not wanting government bodies to interfere in the people's free expression does not mean that I'm in any way anti-gay.
27 - Steve Rhodes
So the SF Board passing a resolution which simply is speech somehow infringes on the first ammendment?
It didn't seem to keep them from the steps of city hall or from hanging out in (the awfully named) AT&T
Park just down the street from where I'm supposed to be working now.
But gosh the time you spend a condemning the SF BOS is time you won't be attacking... Oh, didn't mean to plagarize some other guy.
28 - Al Barger
Mr Rhodes, it's NOT "just speech" when a government body does it, as they have the force of law behind them. It doesn't become a violation of the constitution only if they actually send armed policemen to beat up demonstrators.
Would you advocate the much smaller degree of slack that would be necessary to accept local county courthouses having Christmas displays? What about Judge Moore with his huge honkin' display of the Ten Commandments. That's just speech, right?
29 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Folks, maybe you should all clear your heads ands clear your minds for a bit.
First of all, it is American culture that makes it a virtual imperative to draw a gun if you are carrying one. We have plenty of people packing heat here, and our murder rate is far lower than anything you guys have in the States.
Second of all, Arabs scream "slaughter the Jews!" all the time in their demonstrations here, and the cops don't do a thing, even though it is incitement and against the law here. But G-d help us if we scream "death to the Arabs!" at a demo. It's off to the pokey right away under admin detention plus charges of incitement, plus all sorts of other trumped up crap.
So Jet, use another analogy for your ideas.
30 - Jet in Columbus
To Al & Arch,
"First of all Jet where did I say that gay people were all "child molesters and useless to society.?"
I dare you to show me where I said that.
"The quote from my comment said "Until you LIVE watching someone on TV or a street corner yelling out that YOU are a pervert, a child molester, a recruiter for the sick minded, as I have daily,
Uh when were you last on a street corner or on TV??? Before you go berserk, and stomp your feet and scream hysterically, you might at least have read it correctly before you got so upset. You are now guilty of putting words in MY mouth about putting words in your mouth!!!!
"Second the evangelicals in San Fransisco were in a stadium which they paid for and they were not getting in ayone's face. Several of them did go to City Hall and protest outside on the street, a public location."
From the original post-He wants to turn loose a bunch of new youth ministers to help the homeless, evangelize for Christ, and so on... And exactly where were they going to do this? They were going to rent a hall-I don't think so, they were going out recruiting homeless people on the street-that's where! For crying out loud you said so yourself-they were on a PUBLIC STREET
"What TV evangelist is preaching that it's God's will to kill all fags?"
Your answer: The sooner the big one hits and this city falls into the ocean the better off this nation will be.
That's almost a quote from Leviticus about how men who lie with men should be put to death-Look it up-Everyone from Jerry Falwell to Pat Robertson has preached it-THAT'S WHO-in your opinion San Francisco is just Sodom and Gomorrah by the sea?
The RIGHT will seek to control our freedom of speech in a manner that's not only often illegal but generally unruly, vulgar and in our face. Especially if the subject is "objectional" to them, or if it's Hebrew, Arab, Catholic, or anything else that might offend their RELIGIOUS rightwing, fundamentalist OWNERS.
Frankly I think it's the conservative "lifestyle" they've/you've chosen to live. As you can see I haven't put any words in your mouth-so cut the friggin' bullshit will you??????
31 - Ray
What is the difference between the SF Board of Supervisors criticizing Teen Mania and George Bush criticizing the Taliban?
I mean other than the fact that you are more in agreement with Team Mania and George Bush than with the Taliban and SF Sups.
32 - Dave Nalle
JP:As opposed to the nutjobs who want us to be able to fire at will when "threatened", Dave?
I resemble that remark!
But seriously. All those people you refer to want is the right to have their situation considered when brought to trial in such a case. We're talking mostly about situations involving chronically abused women and the like here.
CP: Banning handguns within a city limits is fascist? My political compass must be seriously rusty!
You actually have a political compass? And yes, banning handguns so that store owners and citizens cannot defend themselves and their property is fascist. It's the definition of fascist, because it takes away autonomy and makes people reliant on the state. And it's especially stupid when your city is across a bridge from another city which is full of heavily armed criminals.
33 - Bliffle
Do you think the Supes were more upset at them for being Texans than for being christians? Just a thought.
34 - Jet in Columbus
Bliffle, San Francisco is a wonderful town, because they accept anyone for who they are, with no reservations or judgment. It is a culture that has existed for hundreds of years, and they just don't want that brand of "Christianity" to be nurtured or to take hold in their midst.
They proved how accepting they can be by hosting the Chistian group in the first place, and as a reward, they were bitten in the ass for doing it.
...but that's only my opinion
35 - mike
let the annoying christian kids have their rallies. for god sakes we have to tolerate annoying liberal kids protest the war, have gay parades, feminist marches and such
36 - Jet in Columbus
When the hell did Liberal become a bad word? It used to mean open to new knowledge, open to new experience, open to new hopes.
Now it only seems to be a prejudicial slur.
Maybe it's time to make "conservative" a cuss word.
Give me a little while to think some stuff up...
37 - Al Barger
Jet writes: "San Francisco is a wonderful town, because they accept anyone for who they are, with no reservations or judgment."
By way of showing how UTTERLY FALSE that statement is, please note the complete text of the BoS resolution that I have just added to the story. "No judgment" my ass.
38 - Jet in Columbus
Al, I still say that San Francisco reacted the same way as Lynchburg Virginia would if an Islamic convention rented a venue in the middle of their town, advocating that Christians convert.
San Francisco reacted the same way that you would if it was decided tomorrow that alongside the opening prayers, to be fair, a Moslem prayer had to be also said before Congress convened every day.
There's only one explanation why that Christian group targeted San Francisco-and both you and I know it.
You have a great writing talent, very persuasive, and though provoking, but the shame is that apparently everyone who disagrees with you is a leftist, liberal, fool. Any facts you disagree with are only opinion, and propaganda.
I've looked at both sides now, I can SEE both sides now. The tradegy is that we're both so bullheaded we'll never change eachother's minds.
As I've said before, I'm almost convinced both of your stereo speakers probably only play the right channel.
At least I can admit when I'm wrong...
...but of course that's only my opinion
39 - Dave Nalle
When the hell did Liberal become a bad word? It used to mean open to new knowledge, open to new experience, open to new hopes.
Those who are using liberal negatively are generally misapplying it. But it's not surprising, because most of those who consider themselves liberal in America aren't actually liberals anyway. What people tend to call liberals are socialists. Real liberals are few and far between and as likely to be on the political right as the political left.
Now it only seems to be a prejudicial slur.
Maybe it's time to make "conservative" a cuss word.
Give me a little while to think some stuff up...
Plenty of people already do, and they probably don't understand what it means either.
Dave
40 - Ray
So you still haven't backed up the substance of your post. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the SF Sups, or the President, or anyone else in government from condemning any or all religions. It's just not there.
The Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Did the Sups stop Teen Mania from gathering together and giving making their speech? From meeting in the city? Did they lock them up for their religious opinions? You don't show any evidence.
Condemning is not making a law or prohibiting, even if the condemnation happens to appear in a resolution.
Returning to my previous example from #31, what is the legal difference between the President condemning the Taliban and the Sups condemning Teen Mania.
The Taliban are a segment of Islam. The Mania Teens are a segment of Christianity. The President and the Sups are both part of the government.
What is the difference besides your agreeing with one condemnation and disagreeing with the other?
41 - teddyblackheart666
Sure it's easy to abhore religion for its misdeeds of the past. Mainly the hipocracy of western religions which preach tolerance and then turn around with spiteful wrath (wich is a sin by the way) aimed at others. But isn't that exactly what these anti-christian groups are doing. They claim to uphold tolerance with their fellow man, and accuse this group of being intolerant, then exiles their presence from town.
42 - Al Barger
Now Jet, if you go making nice with me like comment 38, I'm going to find it awfully hard to cuss you out for your danged liberal ways.
Of course, it's totally cool if you disagree with me. Some things I'm more persuadable on. Some things I don't know what to think, and don't have a firm opinion.
But also, don't make too many presumptions about what I'll think of something. For example, it wouldn't hurt my feelings in the least if Congress started adding Muslim prayers in their mix. Totally cool with me.
Folks in Lynchburg might not would appreciate a big gay rally. Like the RESIDENTS of San Francisco, they'd be perfectly within rights to bitch. Specifically, Falwell might not want their shenanigans on his private school property. That's within rights.
But if the Lynchburg city council got together to formally rebuke the gay group for their speech on behalf of the government, then I'd be just as crappy about that as this Frisco business.
Citizens have a right to bitch, government bodies pretty much have a duty to stay out of it.
I don't necessarily think that everyone who disagrees with me is a fool, liberal or otherwise. I wouldn't have very many playmates if I ran off everyone who disagrees with me. Hell, some of my best friends are Garth Brooks fans.
But I don't even intend on suffering fools gladly. Generally, I've got a pretty high tolerance for wide differences in opinion. If you're trying to be honest and sociable, I'm not difficult to work with. But I'll lose patience fairly quickly when I think someone's being dishonest or malicious.
FACTS I'm all about. As the saying goes, everybody gets to have their own opinion, but you don't get to have your own facts. But many people confuse their own deeply held opinions with facts. "We've had 2000+ American soldiers killed in Iraq" is a fact. "The Iraq war is a disaster" on the other hand, is an opinion.
As to why the evangelicals met in San Francisco, yes it was partly because of the gay marriage thing. I mentioned that in the original article. By the sounds of reports though, that's a secondary point. They don't seem to be particularly obsessed with it. It does make sense though that Christians would go to Sodom. Also, they are having a tour, and there are three cities in this little promotion. They apparently get around.
43 - Al Barger
Ray (comment 40)- I take it then that you have no problem with county courthouses putting up nativity scenes?
Also, you don't see any difference between President Bush expressing an opinion about a foreign power vs a government body per se talking about their citizens over whom they have legal jurisdiction? And of all possible examples with which to make your point, you pick the frickin' Taliban? They're just another branch of Al Qaeda, and they're not just talking.
44 - Ray
I don't really see the relevance to courthouses and nativity scenes. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion which a nativity scene in the courthouse arguably is. Whether it is, or isn't, is beside the point here. The Constitution doesn't prohibit what you are concerned about, the verbal condemnation of a religion by a government or government official.
The Taliban are a religious group. The Teen Mania are a religious group. I don't see the Constitutional problem with a government body or official condemning a religious group for their beliefs. Some beliefs are damnable.
If you think the SF Sups are loony nut cases for being opposed to Teen Mania, that's one thing. If you think that the Constitution prohibits the SF Sups from condemning Teen Mania, or Jerry Falwell, or the Taliban, that's another.
For what it's worth the SF Board of Supervisors also voted to condemn the Taliban sometime around 1999.
45 - Christopher Rose
DAVE: re your #32, I mean banning ALL the handguns not just those of business owners...
46 - JP
Jet, I'm with you on that - and notwithstanding Dave's valid point about both 'liberal' and 'conservative' being inaccurately used, in their modern use 'liberal' has become a slur. George Clooney is tired of that also.
This editorial sums up nicely the dangers of allowing that to happen, and argues essentially that it's the result of the Right's giant propaganda machine. I don't see a way to stop it myself.
47 - Jet in Columbus
Teddyback-the short answer is being intolerant against intolerance.
...but of course that's only my opinion
48 - Jet in Columbus
Thanks Al for #42, it puts your point of view in better perspective. However I think I may have laid my finger on the problem.
Since ancient times municipalities, countries, and cultures have all laid down a set of rules, boundaries and limitations regarding their citizen's behaviors, that of course are refered to as laws. The Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese in particularl had set them up long before Moses and his tablets, or Christ came along.
About a thousand years after the bible was written, suddenly ultra religous cults, in our country, began laying claim that our set of laws laid down in the constitution are based on The Bible.
This is wrong, there were simular rules and punishments on the books long before the Romans converted and used the "Good Book" to base their culture on.
As a result of this, people like Pat Robertson preach that the Pilgrims actually made a Moses-like journey across the Atlantic, as a sign and a miracle from God, to set up a theocracy in the New World.
In other words, somehow, and somewhere along the line, we've let the Christian Right get away with not only claiming that our laws and the Bible are one and the same, but that it's their exclusive province to interpret those laws, to the exclusion of everyone else.
Probably about the time that the Christian Fundamentalist movement and the Gun Lobby bought the Republican Party outright in order to get Reagon elected?
Up until that date, I was a staunch Republican, and to this day, I consider Gerald Ford our greatest President because he saved our country from suffering the dragged out, years-long agony, and possible constitutional crisis that a trial of Richard Nixon would've resulted from.
...but of course that's only my opinion
Now wouldn't that make a good blog?
49 - Al Barger
Yes Jet, that sounds like it might make a fine blog. You should have one. You know, it only takes a minute to create one at blogger.com.
Personally, I'd like to have seen a trial of Richard Nixon. Make an example of him, and maybe the likes of Clinton would have been a bit more circumpsect with their shenanigans.
Also though, the idea that the US government is based on the Bible and Christian teachings isn't something that the Republicans just dreamed up in the last few decades. That's been around since the beginning, and indeed some of the founders would more or less have agreed- though thankfully we had the likes of Jefferson riding herd.
50 - Jet in Columbus
"Circumpsect" is that like circumsized? You and Arch Conservative must use the same spell checker... not that I have any room to talk (:-)
Thanks, I've sent out feelers to Eric, but as yet haven't heard back from him. I'll look into setting up a blog as you suggest and see where it goes from there.
Should I use Dave Nalle as a reference???
51 - Dave Nalle
Well Jet, I'm one of the editors so you already have my endorsement, if that carries any weight with Eric. I imagine it won't hurt you at least.
Dave
52 - Dave Nalle
DAVE: re your #32, I mean banning ALL the handguns not just those of business owners...
The business owners were just one example of a group particularly badly harmed by a handgun ban. Everyone who might be the target of violence is put at greater risk when you ban guns.
Dave
53 - Jet in Columbus
thank you sir...
54 - Al Barger
Jet, almost all of us have our own blogs to which we cross-post most of our Blogcritics material. Thus, the obvious approach would be to set up your own blog, which you can readily do for free, and work from there. Get maybe at least a couple or three articles up on your own site over a couple of weeks so you've got something to show, and then drop our Dear Leader a note. Feel free to come by MoreThings and drop me a note if you want to ask questions privately.
55 - Andy Marsh
There used to be people on here...although the one that comes to mind wouldn't have given Jet any grief...like minds and all...that would give you a real ration of shit for NOT having a blog.
56 - Jet in Columbus
Thanks Al
Andy, I'm not all that techno savvy yet, but I'm looking into it. I've got some more surgeries coming up, and don't know if I'll have time for it, or if I'll survive it. I'd send you pictures, but you'd gag.
Thanks again
57 - Al Barger
Jet, the basic point of the idea of "blogging" versing just generally having some kind of website is that you don't need much tech savvy to do it. Again, five minutes at blogger.com, and you'd have a blog. Pick a name, have them publish to the blogspot server. You can get to doing fancier things, but a basic blog entry is no more difficult than writing an email- or a comment at Blogcritics. The blog software will generate URLs and folders to put them in, stack your newest stories on the top of the page. That's the point of it.
Just do it.
58 - Jet in Columbus
Thanks I've already looked at it, and giving it some serious thought.
Thanks for making me feel welcome
59 - Al Barger
I try to be a little more welcoming than the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. :)
60 - Christopher Rose
Jet: a "blog" is really just a certain design for a website. It could more accurately be called a personal publishing system and is way easier to manage than a traditional website design.
At the most basic level you don't need to know any html at all. As Al wrote, if you can do email or post a blog comment, you can do a blog dead easy.
You could consider using it to document your story or as your own personal newspaper, broadcasting your thoughts to the whole wide world with absolutley no effort on your part.
The easiest place to set up a blog is surely the google owned Blogger. It's not the best, mostly due to the dozy halfwits not having a categories system (imagine a book without an index!), but it's definitely easy. Some might say TOO easy, particularly sad gits like me who have about ten!
61 - JP
Christopher, yes I'm still new at this and recently realized the Category oversight - I am using del.icio.us Tagrolls to create a set of categories and articles within. It takes you out of and back into the Blogger interface, but it does solve that problem.
62 - Christopher Rose
Hi JP; yeah, I know about the technorati/delicious workaround but it's too clunky for me.
Technology that isn't easy to use is bad technology or bad design - or both! About time Google started thinking about doing some good rather than not being evil!
;-)
63 - Andy Marsh
I use blogspot.com...you can upload those pictures for us Jet! Just kidding...it is something to do and it's not hard at all. blogspot has templates and all that stuff. Sounds like from earlier posts that you'd have help too.
good luck with the surgery too. I hate the hospital!
64 - Jet in Colubus
Thanks to all of you.
It's like the first time I took an answering machine apart, or fixed my car, or installed a replacement stereo in a 70 LeMans.
You're convinced it'll be incredibly difficult, until you actually get your hands dirty and grab a screw driver, and after you're done you wonder what all the fuss was about.
As for your wishes of luck, it means the world to me. Nov 2004 I was robbed and nearly beaten to death for only having $51 in a pizza delivery, and so far I've had 9 surgeries. Now that they've repaired my foot, and fused my ankle together into one unmovable piece, they can go to work on a healed over fractured knee, and a fracture above and below it. They couldn't do anything with it until now because I've had a cast on my leg continously up until last December.
As you can tell by some of my off the wall rantings, I've suffered a few psychological problems from it too.
again thanks...
I'm working on it.
65 - Zach
"It makes as much sense as Palistinians marching through Israel screaming anti Jewish slogans!!!"
Or blacks marching through Selma seeking equal access to the polls? I think you miss the point -- one doesn't preach to the choir if they want change -- they make their point known to those who disagree. Here in San Francisco, there is a tendency for those on the left to refuse to hear, or even acknowledge, the opinions of those on the right. Which makes one wonder -- which side, exactly, is the "phobic" one? On a positive note, numerous letters to the editor fo the SF Chronicle (including one from fomer supervisor Angela Alioto) conemend the Supervisors for their behavior, and the Chron also publihed an editorial. There may be some hope for this town yet...
66 - DJ
Fascinating. Do tell, where'd you get the entirety of the text of the resolution, when it isn't even available to the public on the SF Supes' website?
A. The resolution wasn't passed against the youth group. It was passed against the people protesting on the City Hall steps.
B. Neither the Christian youth group nor the protestors were stopped from protesting or having their rally.
C. This is a blatant and histrionic strawman on the part of someone who wishes to point out the speck of dust in his brothers eye while ignoring the plank in his own.
67 - Al Barger
DJ, I got the text of the resolution by writing an email to the Board of Supervisors, and they emailed me back with a PDF.
There's no question that the resolution was specifically aimed at this group.
The First Amendment doesn't just say it's illegal to absolutely outlaw speech. It says "no law respecting an establishment of religion." Formally condemning a specific religious group on behalf of the government certainly counts." Again, I doubt you'd be so understanding of this kind of attempted suppression if the shoe was on the other foot, a town council in Kansas condemning a Jesse Jackson rally, say.
What supposed plank in my own eye am I ignoring here?
68 - DJ
Since you don't know me, and have no way of knowing me, I'm not sure how you're able to tell me I've never been the target of discrimination. But that's hardly the point.
Perhaps you are using a different definition of the word "tolerance" than the one in the dictionary. "Tolerate" does not mean "agree with," or even "ignore." No one's civil rights were suppressed. In no way were either group told they were not able to protest or have their rally. Had they been stopped based on their religious views, then it would have been intolerant and against the first amendment. But as both the rally and protest went forward, your accusation is baseless and reactionary.
The Board of Supervisors overreacted as well, in passing the resolution, and should have taken the high road by ignored the protestors. Especially since most of these people were bused in from out of town specifically to protest in a city viewed as a "modern day Gomorrah," it was obviously a slap in the face of the citizens of San Francisco.
But to say that the supes making a public statement that they disagree with the views of anti-gay anti-choice groups is the same as making a law against religion is ridiculous. It is a political statement, nothing more, nothing less. The group made it political when they filed for a permit to protest. The permit was granted. If their political opinions are based on their religious views, then THEY are bringing religion into it. Not the other way around.
Again, your accusation of civil rights violations on the city's part is unfounded.
69 - Jet in Columbus
Of course he doesn't know you...
He doesn't HAVE to know you...
Don't you know by now that Al knows everything?
...But of course that's only my opinion
70 - DJ
Interesting. Contradiction in terms. AI knows everything....of course he doesn't know you.... lack of ability to debate in cohesive terms. I pointed out he didn't know me because he stated I've never been subjected to religious intolerance. How is he aware of that?
FWIW, although I very highly doubt anyone will agree with this: A government which disapproves of a group's message enough to make a public statement to that effect, but then allows that group to spread their message on the steps of that government seat is the very height of tolerance. Far more so than any "free speech zone"
71 - Jet in Columbus
Okay AJ, I guess when I'm being sarcastic towards Al, I'll have to label that too. I'm on your side sir!
72 - Al Barger
Yeah DJ, that stuff where I'm saying you've never been a victim of religious intolerance- you just made that up. I haven't said such a thing. I highly doubt that you've been subject to any significant religious oppression if you're living in the US- but I don't even know if you're American. Don't care.
That stuff about a cordoned off "free speech zone" doesn't much impress me, either. I've certainly never supported such things. However, even at that, not wanting some schmucks to disrupt the president's speech is not the same as telling people that they're not welcome in your town.
And that business about this resolution in San Francisco representing the "height of tolerance" is utter willful nonsense. The BoS did not have the wherewithal to actually ban them. They couldn't have gotten away with that, so they did the closest thing they could.
73 - Al Barger
By the way, howdy again, Jet. Didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.
74 - Jet in Columbus
Heavens to Mergatroid, why would I think that???
I think you're grown up enough to take a little ribbing, that's why I respect your views.
Of course I could be wrong...
75 - DJ
"However, even at that, not wanting some schmucks to disrupt the president's speech is not the same as telling people that they're not welcome in your town."
People are not merely stopped from disrupting the President's speeches, they are arrested under false pretenses merely for showing up at such presidential appearances, which is a clear violation of first amendment rights. Much different from what the SF BoS did.
You have yet to give me your definition of "tolerate", so I'm assuming you're still laboring under the false impression that it means "to agree with and welcome with open arms and no argument". Such is not the case. I tolerate other points of view, but I'm hardly quiet about disagreeing with them.
Whether or not the youth group that came to San Francisco specifically to target the city is what you now appear to be questioning, As we've moved on from "the city making a law in respect to the establishment of religion" you and I are both aware they did not. Passing a resolution and passing a law are two different things.
The people who came, protested, and enjoyed music were not "persecuted"; they seemed to have a pretty good time. No one was arrested because of their religious beliefs. No one was denied entrance. 25K people showed up. As I said, I agree the BoS overreacted; but they didn't violate the first amendment.
Oh, and I apologize if I misconstrued your comment earlier; I was under the impression you were talking about me personally when you said "I doubt you'd be so understanding of this kind of attempted suppression if the shoe was on the other foot, a town council in Kansas condemning a Jesse Jackson rally, say." It depends. Does the town council stop the rally? If not, they're allowed to say whatever they please, up to and including "We do not agree with the political stances of Jesse Jackson and we don't appreciate his appearance." Which is exactly what the SF BoS did.