Why Dallas is wrong to ban porn convention from city-owned property

posted at 11:01 am on February 14, 2016 by Taylor Millard

A legal brouhaha is about to hit Dallas after the City Council decided to ban a porn convention from the city-owned convention center. Council members voted 8-7 on Wednesday to say “no” to the gathering because Mayor Mike Rawlings wanted to protect the city’s brand (via The Dallas Morning News).

Rawlings said last week it was his “civic obligation to protect the city and our citizens” when explaining why he proposed the resolution calling for the ban. And he said Wednesday that as the city’s “chief brand manager … I do not believe this event is good for our city’s brand.”

He said that, yes, voting to ban Exxxotica might well draw a lawsuit — and that was fine with him… And, Rawlings said, he was not about to hide behind a judge’s robes — or, even, the Constitution.

“This is a business that participates in the commerce of sex,” he said, “and we have a way to do that in our city, and I don’t believe it should be at a city-run venue.”

For the record, I have zero interest in attending a porn convention and I’m really not sure why someone would go to one. But there’s something about this vote which bothers me because it involves public property. If the city is willing to ban a porn show from appearing at the convention center, what’s to stop them from banning a gun show, a church/mosque/synagogue/Viking temple gathering, or a comic book show? One friend of mine disagreed with this opinion, saying the expo isn’t guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution:

The problem is the convention IS guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution under the “right of the people to peacefully to assemble” in the First Amendment and Section 1 of the 14th Amendment under the “ No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ” It’s not like the porn convention broke the law when it came to Dallas last year (something Dallas’ own police chief told the City Council). So for the City Council to say, “we have to pass an ordinance banning the convention because having this in our town would hurt our reputation” is ludicrous. The better avenue was proposed by City Councilwoman Jennifer Staubach Gates to condemn the convention and still allow it to go on. There’s nothing stopping Rawlings, Gates, churches, and nonprofits from holding a protest outside the convention center against what’s going on inside the convention center (this was actually done last year without any problems). It’s the same strategy used by abortion clinic protesters. It’s not going to stop everyone from going into the event, but it might stop a few because of the chance at the public shame.

This also brings up another issue: the fact the convention center is owned by the city. It’s a legal grey area because there are fees groups have to pay before they’re allowed to host an event. If the convention center was private, there wouldn’t be a debate over the issue (and the convention organizers are suing) because it would be a contract between two private entities. The private owners of the convention center could say to the organizers, “No thanks, we don’t want your money, enjoy your refund,” and it’s doubtful a judge would rule against them because of due process in the 14th Amendment. Dallas could also reap property taxes off a privatized convention center because it’s in a great spot in downtown. The reason the city won’t do this is they want their money and the $70K fee to host a convention is $70K. It’s “free money” to a city which is in dire financial straits and needs to make as much money as possible to cover a $1.7B debt.

I completely understand why Rawlings and the rest of the City Council don’t want Exxxotica in the convention center. But their decision to ban it under the guise of protecting Dallas isn’t going to hold water. This is the same City Council which had to pay $270K to settle a lawsuit about protests near highways, got rid of another protest ordinance which kept protesters from being on bridges and overpasses, and had a federal judge tell them their rules on feeding the homeless were unconstitutional. We don’t live in a church, we live in a country with guaranteed rights. This means the porn convention is protected by the First Amendment, just like a gun convention and a religious convention. What would Dallas want their reputation to be: the city which shelled out hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight unconstitutional laws or the city which is willing to let everyone play by the same rules, regardless of how unseemly it might be?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

If the convention center was private, there wouldn’t be a debate over the issue (and the convention organizers are suing) because it would be a contract between two private entities. The private owners of the convention center could say to the organizers, “No thanks, we don’t want your money, enjoy your refund,” and it’s doubtful a judge would rule against them because of due process in the 14th Amendment.

Unless, say, the organizers were organizing something connected with the gay lifestyle.

Drained Brain on February 14, 2016 at 11:09 AM

If the city is willing to ban a porn show from appearing at the convention center, what’s to stop them from banning a gun show, a church/mosque/synagogue/Viking temple gathering, or a comic book show?

why would you equate porn to those things? none of those have addictive properties that cause brain damage. you should do research on what porn does to the brain. it is scary. it affects the brain similar to a drug. i completely understand why the city banned it on city property. the porn stars need to use private property!

Sachiko on February 14, 2016 at 11:11 AM

Mostly because Dallas is stupid.

It used to be one of the top convention venues in the country. The city took over the convention center and expanded it to take advantage of its location. Then the morons went and wouldn’t allow a privately built hotel (long incestuous story), they tore down an arena that they could have been attached to the convention center (another long stupid story), they decided they would be the moral compass of what would be allowed long before Exxxotica was one the scene (gun shows on public property) and they banned two of the major reasons conventioneers go to conventions (cigar smoking and topless clubs).

Do not get me started on the stupidity of the city of Dallas government.

cozmo on February 14, 2016 at 11:11 AM

This is the same City Council which had to pay $270K to settle a lawsuit about protests near highways, got rid of another protest ordinance which kept protesters from being on bridges and overpasses, and had a federal judge tell them their rules on feeding the homeless were unconstitutional.

The City of Dallas was right on every one of those issues. No wonder people are flocking there.

Joseph K on February 14, 2016 at 11:12 AM

Pay attention TM. The city of Dallas banned gun shows on public property a long time ago.

cozmo on February 14, 2016 at 11:13 AM

Unless, say, the organizers were organizing something connected with the gay lifestyle.

Drained Brain on February 14, 2016 at 11:09 AM

A good reminder…

22044 on February 14, 2016 at 11:13 AM

There will be public sex acts. Where is that protected in the Constitution?

Blake on February 14, 2016 at 11:15 AM

Because Jesus.

MJBrutus on February 14, 2016 at 11:15 AM

The shot show was working on a deal to make Dallas one of the rolling hosts for their show.

The primary convention for the adult entertainment convention was also considering Dallas to be a rotating host. Both pulled out over the stupidity of the city of Dallas.

cozmo on February 14, 2016 at 11:16 AM

Lemme get this straight.
Dallas.
The city that has a team owner that gropes and propositions women.
The city that hosts some of the largest prOn establishments and “gentlemen’s” clubs. Indeed, has one very long street with multiple establishments.

That city. has a problem with a pr0n convention?

john1schn on February 14, 2016 at 11:16 AM

The City of Dallas was right on every one of those issues. No wonder people are flocking there.

Joseph K on February 14, 2016 at 11:12 AM

You have no clue.

People ain’t flocking to Dallas. They are flocking to the metroplex.

Big difference.

cozmo on February 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM

…who cares?

JugEarsButtHurt on February 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM

I thought I heard a joke when I lived in the Dallas area that said if a corner didn’t have a church on it, it had a strip club on it. It was one or the other. Weird they would ban this convention.

Fallon on February 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM

…who cares?

JugEarsButtHurt on February 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM

One of the few things I do care about.

cozmo on February 14, 2016 at 11:19 AM

Fallon on February 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM

The strip clubs got moved out of town, and most of the churches followed.

Correlation?

cozmo on February 14, 2016 at 11:20 AM

I’m pretty sure a city is allowed to have a moral standard. Does a dry county have to allow a liquor convention?

Buddahpundit on February 14, 2016 at 11:22 AM

First off, there is no such thing as “Porn Addiction” unless one is willing to stretch the definition of addiction to include playing video games, watching Lifetime movies and recycling.

Second, everything ruins lives. Don’t kid yourself. More people are used up and spat out by IT departments nationwide than could live in the city of Van Nuys.

Third, way to show that your idea of “small government” means, “putting government in charge of things I don’t want other people to do.” OTOH, intellectual consistency has never been high on the list of either side of the political divide. However, conservatives USED to say that they believed in personal responsibility.

MunDane68 on February 14, 2016 at 11:23 AM

It’s up to the mayor to allow or deny any event, except when it enjoys (or successfully hides under the pretense of) Constitutional protection. It’s up to the citizens to throw such mayor out due to resulting job losses.

Rix on February 14, 2016 at 11:26 AM

The strip clubs got moved out of town, and most of the churches followed.

Correlation?

cozmo on February 14, 2016 at 11:20 AM

Saturday night in the club and Sunday morning in the pews. You gotta sin to be forgiven for sinning, I guess.

Fallon on February 14, 2016 at 11:26 AM

The private owners of the convention center could say to the organizers, “No thanks, we don’t want your money, enjoy your refund,” and it’s doubtful a judge would rule against them because of due process in the 14th Amendment.

TAYLOR…. just like refusing to cater a SS wedding?
another fine entry… well thought-out

B4B on February 14, 2016 at 11:26 AM

without due process of law

As far as I know, the city council are freely elected and are part of the “due process of law”. They have control, and responsibility of city property, as with most other cities. Law isn’t decided by lawyers, it’s decided by voters, and what they will endure or approve. Dallas City Council is probably following what they believe to be the will of their constituents. They most definitely weren’t acting outside of the law.

Rode Werk on February 14, 2016 at 11:26 AM

cozmo on February 14, 2016 at 11:19 AM

…ok with that coz…I’m just saying after yesterdays events and all the concerns from one days events…why bring this up here and now.

JugEarsButtHurt on February 14, 2016 at 11:28 AM

“If we want to protect all free speech then we must defend even speech that is repugnant to us”

Thanks TM for reminding me that as an area taxpayer (Frisco) that I have an interest in this. At least the topless bars are not allowed in the counties north of Dallas.
We do get a lot of gun shows, however, which IMHO is a plus.

mad scientist on February 14, 2016 at 11:28 AM

…why bring this up here and now.

JugEarsButtHurt on February 14, 2016 at 11:28 AM

Mental break or mental breakdown?

Fallon on February 14, 2016 at 11:29 AM

I live about an hour outside the Big D. They have a long history of telling business, and the people, to go to hell. Let it continue, since their voters seem to enjoy the decay. Soon the DPD pension fund will go under. They are worried their officers will seek employment elsewhere. Their solution to that worry is remove even incentive for business to bring in tax dollars.

RIP, Dallas. You got what you asked for.

Limerick on February 14, 2016 at 11:31 AM

The GOP pays lip service to liberty, but it doesn’t actually believe in it. It all stems from the fact that the GOP just doesn’t trust people to be free.

In that, they’re in the company of the Democrats.

NorthernCross on February 14, 2016 at 11:32 AM

They were afraid that a lot of the attendees would be government workers visiting during work hours…. ;-)

albill on February 14, 2016 at 11:33 AM

The reason we have staggering debt in every aspect of government is because cities like Dallas have ownership interests in a convention center. A fundamental lack of understanding of what the role of government is.
Go Bernie!!

lowandslow on February 14, 2016 at 11:36 AM

Do not get me started on the stupidity of the city of Dallas government.

cozmo on February 14, 2016 at 11:11 AM

Ditto.

The City of Dallas was right on every one of those issues. No wonder people are flocking there.

Joseph K on February 14, 2016 at 11:12 AM

Actually, people aren’t flocking to Dallas, they’re flocking to all the suburbs around Dallas, but they’re not coming to Dallas proper.

clearbluesky on February 14, 2016 at 11:39 AM

RIP, Dallas. You got what you asked for.

Limerick on February 14, 2016 at 11:31 AM

It started when the show “Dallas” came on. The good old boys retired (except for the Crow family) and city government was taken over nose in the air types who’s wet dream was to pick Dallas up and place it between Philadelphia and New York City (including the crow family).

The aura of Oswald was replaced by “we’re special”.

It’s up to the citizens to throw such mayor out due to resulting job losses.

Rix on February 14, 2016 at 11:26 AM

90-plus% of the citizens don’t know, or care, what goes on at the convention center. The same show was here last year and those against it couldn’t raise enough stink to do anything. They were prepared this year.

In that, they’re in the company of the Democrats.

NorthernCross on February 14, 2016 at 11:32 AM

The city of Dallas is run by democrats. Even though local elections are ostensibly non partisan.

cozmo on February 14, 2016 at 11:43 AM

Another example of using the big bad government to police morality.

So-cons are hellbent on making my life hell.

weedisgood on February 14, 2016 at 11:48 AM

Correct title should be.

Why Dallas is wrong to own a convention center.

lowandslow on February 14, 2016 at 11:48 AM

So-cons are hellbent on making my life hell.

weedisgood on February 14, 2016 at 11:48 AM

Nanny state democrats you stupid moron.

cozmo on February 14, 2016 at 11:48 AM

Another example of using the big bad government to police morality.

So-cons are hellbent on making my life hell.

weedisgood on February 14, 2016 at 11:48 AM

There’s not a so-con left in Dallas, much less on the city council, dems completely took over in ’06 and it’s leaned dem since the 90’s.

clearbluesky on February 14, 2016 at 11:52 AM

Because Jesus.

MJBrutus on February 14, 2016 at 11:15 AM

Except Jesus partied with prostitutes…

This isn’t Christianity – This is liberal elitism, moral arbiters…

“Zealots” if you will…

Skywise on February 14, 2016 at 11:52 AM

Another example of using the big bad government to police morality.

So-cons are hellbent on making my life hell.

weedisgood on February 14, 2016 at 11:48 AM

So the city should allow all conventions?

Like the North American Marlon Brando Association?

The government polices morality everyday, like trying to shut down coal plants because it offends people.

Skywise on February 14, 2016 at 11:54 AM

The right of the people peaceably to assemble…shall not be abridged

unless you’re the boy scouts or want to draw mohammad cartoons.

WryTrvllr on February 14, 2016 at 11:56 AM

So is it the official position of Taylor Millard that cities and states have no sovereign rights to refuse to participate in indecent and immoral acts? This is the same kind of absurd reasoning that atheist groups are using to force governments to erect statues honoring Satan in official venues. Does no one understand the design of our federal form of government? The citizens of a city or town (via their elected officials) are the ones who can make this kind of call. The government of a state needs to be a little more constrained so it doesn’t place an undue burden on local governments. The federal government needs to be a *lot* more constrained for the same reason. To say that the local governments must not make this kind of decision just because the *federal* government isn’t competent to make a sweeping generalization about what’s moral and immoral is a serious misunderstanding of civics.

joe_doufu on February 14, 2016 at 11:56 AM

So the city should allow all conventions?

Skywise on February 14, 2016 at 11:54 AM

So where dose the morality police draw the line?

Is there a morality clause list you can reference me to?

Do you have a web link to such clause?

weedisgood on February 14, 2016 at 11:58 AM

So where dose* the morality police draw the line?

Is there a morality clause list you can reference me to?

Do you have a web link to such clause?

weedisgood on February 14, 2016 at 11:58 AM

does*

weedisgood on February 14, 2016 at 12:03 PM

hellbent on making my life hell.

weedisgood on February 14, 2016 at 11:48 AM

…smoke better shit!

Do you have a … link to such clause?

weedisgood on February 14, 2016 at 11:58 AM

…wouldn’t help you….check the tube at the end of your bong.

JugEarsButtHurt on February 14, 2016 at 12:04 PM

I’m pretty sure a city is allowed to have a moral standard. Does a dry county have to allow a liquor convention?

Buddahpundit on February 14, 2016 at 11:22 AM

Probably. Dry counties can only ban the sale of liquor not the consumption nor the transportation of it. I grew up in a dry county. Liquor suppliers could truck their products through the county just couldn’t deliver any in the county. Counties on either side of us were wet and liquor trucks went through all the time. Rules may vary from state to state but they’re not going to vary much. Interesting statistical tidbit. The county where I lived had a much higher per capita DUI rate than Louisville. Something the Southern Baptists hated to hear and would suddenly change the subject when it was brought up.

Oldnuke on February 14, 2016 at 12:11 PM

dose*…weedisgood on February 14, 2016

….no!…you were right…the first time!

JugEarsButtHurt on February 14, 2016 at 12:12 PM

90-plus% of the citizens don’t know, or care, what goes on at the convention center. The same show was here last year and those against it couldn’t raise enough stink to do anything. They were prepared this year.

In that, they’re in the company of the Democrats.

NorthernCross on February 14, 2016 at 11:32 AM

The city of Dallas is run by democrats. Even though local elections are ostensibly non partisan.

cozmo on February 14, 2016 at 11:43 AM

Appreciate you shedding some light on this issue.

So-cons are hellbent on making my life hell.

weedisgood on February 14, 2016 at 11:48 AM

The dreaded “so-cons” are a tiny and mostly politically powerless minority. SJW Democrats are responsible for this.

Doomberg on February 14, 2016 at 12:14 PM

I’m pretty sure a city is allowed to have a moral standard. Does a dry county have to allow a liquor convention?

Buddahpundit on February 14, 2016 at 11:22 AM

Oh yeah, meant to add this. I understand your point but really, why would any distributor want to hold a liquor convention in a dry county?

Oldnuke on February 14, 2016 at 12:18 PM

Ted Cruz hardest hit?

Magicjava on February 14, 2016 at 12:25 PM

Dems in TX always pander to the bible crowd by going after adult venues. They do it in every city except Austin.

Red Creed on February 14, 2016 at 12:31 PM

How is Ted Cruz going to cast his new ad now?

Redstone on February 14, 2016 at 12:31 PM

Doomberg on February 14, 2016 at 12:14 PM

One of the most fun jobs I ever had was doing install/dismantle for conventions all over the south and east. I got to experience how other venues held conventions. Dallas had them all beat. Until mayor Laura Miller (big time liberal dem) destroyed the convention business for Dallas. I watched it happen up close and first hand.

cozmo on February 14, 2016 at 12:31 PM

Red Creed on February 14, 2016 at 12:31 PM

That’s ’cause they hold their planning sessions in Hippie Hollow. They don’t crap where they eat.

cozmo on February 14, 2016 at 12:33 PM

Let’s see—liability for contracting STDs, more hazardous cleanup for the Convention Center itself, I can see a city refusing city facilities for something like this.

Sekhmet on February 14, 2016 at 12:36 PM

First, they discriminated against the pr0nographers, but I wasn’t a pr0nographer, so …..

locomotivebreath1901 on February 14, 2016 at 12:46 PM

If the group can meet all of the city’s requirements and pay the fees then they should be allowed to rent the city owned property. I wouldn’t go to their show or one for comics or Star Trek, either, and no one would have known about this if the mayor hadn’t raised a stink. Is the local paper going to turn down advertising revenue over this?

Kissmygrits on February 14, 2016 at 12:54 PM

Both pulled out

cozmo on February 14, 2016 at 11:16 AM

Did somebody say porn?

HonestLib on February 14, 2016 at 1:12 PM

Well, if it had been gay islamic terrorists….

ProfShadow on February 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM

Well, if it had been gay islamic terrorists….

ProfShadow on February 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM

So they would blow themselves……up?

HonestLib on February 14, 2016 at 1:14 PM

Third, way to show that your idea of “small government” means, “putting government in charge of things I don’t want other people to do.” OTOH, intellectual consistency has never been high on the list of either side of the political divide. However, conservatives USED to say that they believed in personal responsibility.

MunDane68 on February 14, 2016 at 11:23 AM

Depends on what you mean by ‘small government’. In the country as originally constituted, states and localities absolutely had the right to do this sort of thing, that is until the SCOTUS molested the Constitution with the incorporation of the first amendment to remove state and local censorship. The Founders had enough sense to know that trash like this shouldn’t be promoted*, and enough practicality to let the states handle it.

But if by ‘small government’, you mean the fantasy, will-work-about-as-well-in-the-real-world-as-Marxism ‘small government’ that libertarians promote, then yeah, you have a point.

*They understood, unlike many today on both sides of the political aisle, that morality is the root of freedom, not an economic or legal system. After all, what upholds the integrity of those last two things?

avgjo on February 14, 2016 at 1:21 PM

Send ’em to LA. We welcome their business with open arms. Dallas is a sweltering hot hell-hole by late May anyway.

ak90049 on February 14, 2016 at 1:43 PM

The problem is the convention IS guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution

No it’s not. They want to hold an organized event. The city of Dallas has every right to refuse hosting that event. Unlike a public park, the city does maintain some control over who comes and goes to and from the building and accesses its utilities. If the Klan or the American Nazi Party wanted to host an event at the Convention Center, the city would have every right to refuse. The same goes for these tawdry pornographers.

Stoic Patriot on February 14, 2016 at 1:55 PM

So where does the morality police draw the line?

Is there a morality clause list you can reference me to?

Do you have a web link to such clause?

weedisgood on February 14, 2016 at 11:58 AM

Can we hold church services in public buildings?

Skywise on February 14, 2016 at 2:29 PM

Weird they would ban this convention.

Fallon on February 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM

They didn’t ban it, they just won’t let it be held in tax payer funded property.

Dick Richard on February 14, 2016 at 3:51 PM

So the city should allow all conventions?

Like the North American Marlon Brando Association?

The government polices morality everyday, like trying to shut down coal plants because it offends people.

Skywise on February 14, 2016 at 11:54 AM

You left out Lampoon after Brando.

IDontCair on February 14, 2016 at 4:08 PM

There’s not a so-con left in Dallas, much less on the city council, dems completely took over in ’06 and it’s leaned dem since the 90’s.
clearbluesky on February 14, 2016 at 11:52 AM

I think Bartlett was the last mayor with any sanity. Late 1980’s. Sanity had fought a good battle but it was doomed going up against the likes Lipscomb, Ragsdale, et al on the council.

Good times.

anuts on February 14, 2016 at 4:59 PM

The city shouldn’t build or own convention centers. That’s a job for the private sector.

TBSchemer on February 14, 2016 at 5:06 PM

But there’s something about this vote which bothers me because it involves public property.

The fact it IS public property should bother you. (Good on you for making that point, later.)

No, this shouldn’t be done on public property, on moral grounds. But, we have corrupted our culture to the point that many people see this as perfectly fine. A republic can only continue so long as the people are moral and informed. Once that stops, your freedom will disappear as the gov’t takes over the role of moral arbiter.
Thank you hedonism, for bringing totalitarianism in on your coattails.

GWB on February 14, 2016 at 6:09 PM

Frisson aids the industry. Without a few Footloose-like community stand-ins, the business’ youthful contingent languishes, as does the artistic drive of its filmmakers.

Viva le different community standards!

derit on February 14, 2016 at 6:44 PM

Does no one understand the design of our federal form of government?

joe_doufu on February 14, 2016 at 11:56 AM

Few do. Few understand the purpose of self-government. They think it it’s somehow freer to have wise elders in Washington decide every concession and balance of freedom.

Many libertarians are just as much “manifesto-ists” as libs. I can’t trust the people to deliver the porn–the lack of which, apparently makes weed’s life “a living hell”–just think how much worse his life would be without weed, therefore, the people need to be overruled from Washington.

It’s just amazing how many people are seduced into the nilhilism of “equality”, and the subsequent nullification of discretion. It’s perhaps because the intellectual life means so little to people that the ambiguities of discretion are given up to the elites in Washington, to decide what type of discretion. People prefer bread and circuses and a promise to the sating of appetite.

Axeman on February 14, 2016 at 10:36 PM

Interesting points.

The right of the people peaceably to assemble…shall not be abridged

unless you’re the boy scouts or want to draw mohammad cartoons.

WryTrvllr on February 14, 2016 at 11:56 AM

So is it the official position of Taylor Millard that cities and states have no sovereign rights to refuse to participate in indecent and immoral acts? This is the same kind of absurd reasoning that atheist groups are using to force governments to erect statues honoring Satan in official venues. Does no one understand the design of our federal form of government? The citizens of a city or town (via their elected officials) are the ones who can make this kind of call. The government of a state needs to be a little more constrained so it doesn’t place an undue burden on local governments. The federal government needs to be a *lot* more constrained for the same reason. To say that the local governments must not make this kind of decision just because the *federal* government isn’t competent to make a sweeping generalization about what’s moral and immoral is a serious misunderstanding of civics.

joe_doufu on February 14, 2016 at 11:56 AM

The dreaded “so-cons” are a tiny and mostly politically powerless minority. SJW Democrats are responsible for this.

Doomberg on February 14, 2016 at 12:14 PM

One of the most fun jobs I ever had was doing install/dismantle for conventions all over the south and east. I got to experience how other venues held conventions. Dallas had them all beat. Until mayor Laura Miller (big time liberal dem) destroyed the convention business for Dallas. I watched it happen up close and first hand.

cozmo on February 14, 2016 at 12:31 PM

*They understood, unlike many today on both sides of the political aisle, that morality is the root of freedom, not an economic or legal system. After all, what upholds the integrity of those last two things?

avgjo on February 14, 2016 at 1:21 PM

AesopFan on February 14, 2016 at 11:17 PM

Since when was the right to assemble the right to use city property for a trade convention of any sort, let alone something so reprehensible?

Oh, and you say: “under the guise of protecting Dallas”. So, it’s just the “guise”, is it? So, there is no problem? You don’t want to attend one but there’s no real problem with it? Just not your thing? You obviously have a lot to learn about the very serious problems involved.

CanofSand on February 15, 2016 at 2:02 AM

The GOP pays lip service to liberty, but it doesn’t actually believe in it. It all stems from the fact that the GOP just doesn’t trust people to be free.

In that, they’re in the company of the Democrats.

NorthernCross on February 14, 2016 at 11:32 AM

The Mayor of Dallas is a DEMOCRAT, moron!

Just like the sh!t-hole that is Houston, Dallas has been run by democrats pretty much FOREVER!

Destroying Liberty and Freedom is very consistent with the democrat party’s mission in life.

TopFuel425 on February 15, 2016 at 2:27 AM