What legal right did somebody have to tell him he can’t display it?
I’d say a city is well within its legal rights to remove non-city property from city-owned/controlled property.
Same thing for all the memorials to people that were killed on city streets. Noboby has a right to use public property to display personal, political or religious messages.
He wants to put it on public property
Not the question: the question is why the commission caved. I mean after 63 years? The problem is that public agencies cave whenever the atheists threaten to sue because they don’t want to spend money defending the rights of the people. But they will give tons of money to some contractor for a “study.”
He can display whatever he wants on his own property. But he wants to put his personal display on public land.
There are private companies that buy or rent roadside land, erect billboards, and collect money from people who want to disseminate a message. This guy wants the government to provide him with a space to disseminate his message, free of charge.
Then, of course, there’s the question of what to do when someone wants to adorn a different stretch of highway median with a sign saying “All hail Satan, praise the Dark Lord.”
Well, since it was on public land, I would imagine the city, if they're the property owner.
This whole affair derives from a gross, willful misreading of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Bill of Rights was passed for the sole purpose of limiting the Federal Government, not state governments. However, at the time, there was a minority who thought that someday the Bill of Rights would be twisted to limit the rights of the states. They were right. If the ratifiers of the Constitution could have seen ten years into the future, the Constitution would not have passed ratification.
Even as a limitation on the Federal Gov't, the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion, such as a state-run (e.g., "Anglican") church. Religious symbols were regularly seen in government buildings for many years after the Constitution was ratified.
The atheist lawyers cite Supreme Court rulings as a basis in the various states. Lemon v. Kurtzman is probably the best known and most egregious. What we have lost track of is that the Supreme Court's scope is limited. For instance, SCOTUS can say a Wisconsin law is unconstitutional, and according to the original arguments for the Constitution, Wisconsin can say "SCOTUS, go to hell" and ignore the ruling. Thanks to Andrew Jackson's threat of war on South Carolina for doing just this (the Nullification Crisis), states have long since forgotten they have this option.