I have written here and here my thesis that the main "point" or effect of making homosexuality a protected category will be to criminalize religious disagreement. This has already happened in Canada.

Today's reading (via world mag blog) brings yet another demonstration of the unfortunate correctness of my assertion, but this time, and for the first time, in the USA.

A group of peaceful, non-violent, anti-homosexual Christian protestors in Philadelphia face 47 years in prison and felony chargers for asserting publicly that homosexuality is a sin in Phillidelphia, the City of Brotherly Love.

The AFA, who represents them in court, describes the charges as follows:

They were charged with eight crimes, including three felonies: possession of instruments of crime (a bullhorn), ethnic intimidation (saying that homosexuality is a sin), and inciting a riot (reading from the Bible some passages relating to homosexuality) despite the fact that no riot occurred.

The charge of "ethnic intimidation" was made possible because "sexual orientation" was added to the list of protected categories in Pennsylviania in 2002. Thus public disagreement with the practice of homosexuality can now apparently be considered a crime.

They were also charged with a truckload of misdemeanors including "criminal conspiracy".

The arrests were witnessed and recorded by a film-maker from San Franciso who was making a documentary on same-sex marriage and wanted to hear what the "other side" had to say on the matter. Instead, he was almost arrested, apparently just for being present and holding a camera:

"They tried to arrest me and say I was an accomplice," he said. "I held up my ID and said, 'We're from San Francisco.'

"We come from the gayest city in America," Shaw said. "Why would we go there to go after these people at their OutFest?"

Shaw says he almost didn't make it out without being arrested.

"I had one foot in the paddy wagon," he said. "They were making me take my camera and headphones off" before finally being given a reprieve.

So you can see how clear the provocation was. Holding a camera. Being near Christians. Who were holding signs. I'm sure the evidence against the other arrestees was similarly strong. Must have been because they eventually dropped all charges against 7 of the 11 originally arrested.

Certainly good to know they were all arrested on pretty firm evidence.

The filmmaker said he was surprised the protesters were charged with so many criminal counts.

"I've seen a lot of people from where we're from do a lot worse things and get in a lot less trouble," he said. "Everyone thought they'd just get a slap on the wrist."

He also mentioned how quickly the protesters were arrested, saying it was only 35 minutes from the time they left their cars until they were on the way to jail.

"They didn't really even get set up," he said. "The other side [the Pink Angels] was so ready for them. … They didn't even get a whole song finished" before the conflict began. Besides quoting the Bible, Repent America protesters sing Christian songs at protests.

Shaw released his video, which I have watched. It shows the protestors simply standing on the sidewalk, sometimes walking a bit, talking peacably with the chief of police. They are blocked in on all sides by a ring of activists ("Pink Angels") who scream at them, harrass them, and impede their movement, apparently illegally. According to reports, at points nearly 500 counter-protestors surrounded them. While nothing was done regarding the "Pink Angels", after a few minutes the police had the small group of Christians arrested.

On videotape, I could see no obvious illegal activity: They were standing and walking non-violently in a public place, singing, holding a few signs, and completely cooperating with police (though complaining about the harassment) until the last few seconds when they were told to leave the area completely. Yet that charge, "failure to disperse", even if warranted (four people is an unruly mob?), is only a misdemeanor, and does not account for the many felony charges and 47 years in jail they face.

What was said? Not much that I could see. A generic Christian song about "blessed be the name of the Lord". A Philladelphia Inquirer editorial asserted they held a sign which read "God abhors you" but World Magazine says that's a false allegation, superimposed from a different story:

In fact, that sign came from a different group of protestors at the Philadelphia gay pride event in 2003. All signs from Repent America protestors, four of whom face hate crime prosecution, were Bible verses except one that read “Homosexuality is a sin; Christ can set you free.”

Regarding the prosecution, a local TV station reports:

District Attorney Charles Ehrlich said the protesters disobeyed police orders to relocate within the festival.

"This has to do with conduct, not content," Ehrlich said. "You can be disorderly, you can fail to follow police orders, or you can take your conduct to another level where you're endangering public safety."

"He tries to hide behind the First Amendment and his right to free speech, when really what he's all about is trying to provoke people into violence," Ehrlich said.

Yet if it was about "conduct" and not "content", when why do other reports cite prosecutor Erlich as calling their message "hateful, disgusting, despicable words" and referred to bible verses as "fighting words"? That sounds like their case is mainly about content, not conduct.

The final term, "fighting words", is more than just an epithet thrown by an enraged, bulging-veined D.A. It is a legal term for words which are not protected by the First Amendment. If controversial bible verses can be legally categorized as "fighting words", they will no longer be a Constitutionally-protected form of speech.

Ponder that precedent.

The defense attorney's statement:

[T]he message of this court is that if you preach from the Scriptures at a gay and lesbian event, you are committing a hate crime... This case is historic, and is the first reported case in America where the Bible is being used to form the evidentiary basis for a hate crime. Now, here in the cradle of liberty and the birthplace of our nation, it is a crime to be openly Christian.

Since then, group's attorney has accused Philadelphia of abuse of power, and the situation has been likened the "Rodney King" situation, but it's unlikely the Justice Department will intervene as it did in Los Angeles.

And why not?

According to the Justice Department employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, a number of agency attorneys from Washington, D.C., attended the October "OutFest" event, and, he says, they therefore are not likely to take up the cause of the five criminally charged Christians who believe Philadelphia officials violated their civil rights.

According to this report, the Justice Department attorneys were the ones who instructed the police to arrest the Christian protestors, and advised them on how to charge them.

In fact, Chief Inspector Tiano, who serves as liaison to the homosexual community, testified at the preliminary hearing that he met at least four times with the organizers of the Outfest event in anticipation of the protesters' activities, presumably to discuss how to handle the "Christians" when they showed up at the event. He also said he had 40 officers on site that day. He did not meet with any of the Christians

According to other reports, a representative of the ACLU may also be involved, but perhaps not in a way one might usually expect:

Another enemy of [protestor] Marcavage, who claimed to be a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, left a message on the Repent America website e-mail interface. It said:

"As a member of the American Civil Liberties Union and a Unitarian-Universalist, I am committed to your suffering the maximum penalty the law will give you. And I will take particular delight knowing your families and loved ones will suffer, too.

"You know my address and my phone if you cowardly bottom-feeders want to come out to where I live and settle this. Bring your god with you. You will need all the help you can get."

That could be a hoax. But it could also be for real. What to guess whether that will be investigated as "hate speech" to determine for sure, hmmm?

So what let's take stock of the situation...

The Justice Department? Among the attorneys in the crowd demanding that the protestors be arrested and specifying the charges the police should use. The ACLU? Possibly has a representative harrassing and threatening the protestors and their families. The city's DA? Says any disagreement with homosexuality is "hateful" and that the protestors are "despicable." The police? Apparently met with the gay community ahead of time to plan their counter-response.

It's all about love, tolerance, diversity, and liberty in Phillidelpia isn't it?

I can't help but think the Founding Fathers would be aghast.