I sometimes cite 'em anyway. They're at least as valid as a law review article or practitioner's handbook.
Going strictly on the text of the opinion - with no access to the appellate record - this decision seems alright to me. When you're on the clock as a public employee, your free speech rights are somewhat curtailed. Looking at the District Court case (2005 WL 351743), it should be noted that the plaintiff of this case was not prevented from expressing her views on marriage or gay rights outside work, over lunch, or on break. All she was instructed to do was, if she was going to use the City's email system to advertise her group, she had to remove verbiage that could be offensive to gay people.
This all goes back to my central First Amendment theorem - freedom of speech does not guarantee access to a forum. When the government provides a forum, you gotta play by the government's rules.
Government forum rules don't apply to captives of government requirement; i.e., if I'm a patient standing in line at the VA Hospital, I can't be prevented from speaking in favor of George Bush, pro-life, or Jesus Christ.
If I'm a worker in that VA hospital, then, when I'm on the job, I'm to be focused on the hospitals outputs/products, and they can control what I do or what I say regarding their outputs/products (with the important exception of whistle-blowers legislation.)
If, however, they establish a speech policy regarding issues not related to their outputs/products, then free speech is the only acceptable policy. One cannot require "pro-Giuliani" speech when employees speak, for example. And if one variety of speech is allowed in break areas, as dialogue through the work day, etc., then the counter opinion cannot be prevented. Violent speech is a police issue, and racist/vulger speech is handled by social ostracism that results from a bad reputation.
You can get away with that in Law School. Don't ever try it in an appellate brief. Just steal the arguments as if they are your own, but if you cite an unpublished case for any authority you can be sanctioned.
This all goes back to my central First Amendment theorem - freedom of speech does not guarantee access to a forum. When the government provides a forum, you gotta play by the government's rules.
True, but the government's rules must be even-handed. In this case the fags (bassoon players) are free to push their in-your-face ANTI-CHIRSTIAN agenda, but any legitimate response to it, such as a memo about "family values" is visited with potential or real governmental sanctions against the author.
That the courts could view the word "family values" as being harassment or discriminatory is the part of this opinion which is most disturbing. This is a clear illegal infringment upon free speech.