"the natural family, marriage and family values."
As a RESPONSE to a homosexual group announcement is clearly an attack and these "Christians" themselves seek to define the homosexuals as clearly excluded from their informal group because they're neither "natural family" nor able to participate in "marriage" and do not have a place in the code words "family values."
This is *NOT* persecution of these "Christians" because they were on the attack. They were responding to the gays. The wording is carefully chosen to be a stick in the eye. It smells of malice.
Gays aren't exactly "welcome" as a general rule and thus these "Christians" were, in effect, creating a hostile work environment deliberately. They, and folks around here, can feign innocence and ignorance but in their hearts know what these "do gooders" were really doing. And they should be ashamed of themselves for trying to shield their petty bigotry behind religious faith.
Neveretheless, if the original email was sent by city employees, there's a good argument that these two women should have been entitled to post a flier even if it was partly or entirely in 'response'. Of course if the original email came from somewhere else altogether, their claim is groundless -- as it would be in any case if they were employed in the private sector.
Either way, if these two women want to promote their faith and 'respond' to gays and lesbians, they should do it on their own time and their own dime. If the judge in this case is wrong, it's not because he's a 'judicial activist'.