Posted on 08/24/2011 6:08:38 AM PDT by AustralianConservative
For years, leftwing media outlets have uncritically praised the almighty “pink dollar.” Also known as the “Dorothy dollar,” it is said to be worth billions, thanks to the so-called US LGBT market. But has it been oversold?
Obviously, if there’s a pink dollar, there must be a Mormon dollar, an Evangelical dollar, and a Catholic dollar, offsetting any alleged financial and political advantages, reason skeptics.
What’s more, some gay critics argue that the “pink dollar” promotes unhelpful stereotypes, and reduces all minorities to potential dollar signs.
As well, money arguments can backfire when considering life expectancy and health issues facing representative homosexuals.
(Excerpt) Read more at thewinstonreview.com ...
It's the Pink Influence, owing to its ownership of media and "the arts," and the leverage that influence gives to those who covet raw power -- that's the currency that matters.
How has such a small segment of the population (2,3% maybe less) managed to hold the rest of the population hostage with their perverted ideology? My advice, ignore them, and let them know to keep their personal business to themselves, and quit trying to force their lifestyles on everybody else.
Or there is this approach.
Article published Mar 9, 2006
________________________________________ Hetero event brings lawsuit Promoter sues over police cost
By Milton J. Valencia TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
WORCESTER — The organizer of the controversial Mr. Heterosexual contest is suing the city, claiming his constitutional right to free speech was violated when police billed him thousands of dollars to provide a presence in case of problems from protesters at the Feb. 18 event in Mechanics Hall.
An Arizona-based legal defense group focusing on religious rights filed the suit in federal court on behalf of the Rev. Thomas Crouse, pastor of the Holland Congregational Church, claiming the city policy to charge a police detail fee because of expected protesters is unconstitutional. The suit seeks reimbursement for damages and legal fees and requests an injunction against future fees should Rev. Crouse decide to hold other events in Worcester.
“City government officials cannot charge a fee for free speech to take place in a private venue,” Gary McCaleb, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed the suit, said in a statement.
Police Chief Gary J. Gemme had not seen the suit yesterday, but said it is without merit. He argued the event venue, Mechanics Hall, had asked for a bigger police presence given the expected protest, and sent an original invoice that accounted for more of a police detail than what was actually provided. He also said Rev. Crouse may have issues with the police presence now because the event raised far less in proceeds than had been expected.
Chief Gemme said he provided the security detail because it was requested. He called Rev. Crouse a bigot and said there was a low turnout because of the nature of the event.
“Obviously, he didn’t have enough money to pay for the venue and the detail,” the chief said.
At issue is the build-up before the “Mr. Heterosexual 2006 — A Celebration of God’s Design” event Feb. 18 at Mechanics Hall. Rev. Crouse, who preaches against homosexuality and calls it a sin, organized the event as a way to promote the heterosexual lifestyle
Gay-rights groups protested outside the hall. Mayor Timothy P. Murray and the city’s Human Rights Commission denounced it.
The build-up to the event and the anticipated protests created a security concern, Chief Gemme said. Rev. Crouse first requested five detail officers, but the chief organized a meeting after hearing about the planned protests. That meeting included the chief, police Capt. John R. Harrington, Rev. Crouse and Norma Sandison, executive director of Mechanics Hall.
Chief Gemme said all agreed on a certain number of police officers, to cover the expected crowd of protesters, both entrances to Mechanics Hall, and the actual event. The chief said Rev. Crouse had raised concerns on his own that a protester could infiltrate the event and create a disturbance during the pageant. The chief said the number of officers was appropriate compared to other events such as those at the DCU Center, and the recent martial arts competition at the Palladium.
But soon after the meeting, the chief said, Capt. Harrington received a message from Mrs. Sandison requesting the number be increased to 20 officers, seven more than agreed upon, given the growing opposition to the event. Capt. Harrington told her 20 officers weren’t needed, but she kept with the request, the chief said. Mrs. Sandison did not return a telephone call for comment made to her office yesterday.
The requested increase in police presence made headlines on its own, with the Rev. Crouse arguing they would cost too much. Worcester Magazine ran an article indicating Rev. Crouse was forced to pay some $6,000 in advance for the event and a security down payment.
After that article ran, Mrs. Sandison sent another message to police telling them to provide the detail they thought was appropriate, and she would deduct the decrease in officers from Rev. Crouse’s bill. The chief said he staffed the number of officers initially agreed upon at the original meeting.
“We felt she was putting us in a no-win situation,” the chief said, claiming she wanted the increase in police officers knowing the Rev. Crouse couldn’t afford it. He said Rev. Crouse is seeking to avoid paying for a barrier that was set up, but it was Mechanics Hall staff which requested the barrier. “We conducted our business with the venue,” the chief said.
Still, the suit claims the estimated cost at the time of the meeting was $6,000, and those costs were too much. The suit also claims the costs were unconstitutional because they were based on outside protesters, a responsibility that shouldn’t fall to Rev. Crouse. It infringed on his right to free speech, said Mr. McCaleb, the lawyer. At the event, there were no reported incidents, and the police barricade was longer than the line of protesters.
Mr. McCaleb could not say what the final costs for police details were, saying there were several invoices, but that it was in the “thousands of dollars,” range. Chief Gemme said the $6,000 figure listed in the suit does not represent the city’s bill for details the night of the event. He also said Rev. Crouse should take issue with Mechanics Hall, because the facility initially wanted more officers.
Mr. McCaleb said yesterday the final details of the police presence, “is something that generally gets hashed out as it goes through the litigation process.” The Telegram & Gazette could not independently obtain any invoices yesterday. The chief said that $6,000 would represent 37 officers, far more than the detail at the event.
To that, Mr. McCaleb responded, “If that’s true, that will come out in the lawsuit.” Nevertheless, he stressed the point of the suit is any request for a police detail because of protesters should have been the city’s obligation.
“Anything else is what we call a heckler’s veto,” Mr. McCaleb said. “It really puts the burden on people who want to speak out.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.