MARCAVAGE v. CITY OF CHICAGO
MICHAEL MARCAVAGE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 09-3335, 09-4079
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued November 4, 2010.
Decided October 4, 2011.
Before BAUER, MANION and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
BAUER, Circuit Judge.
"Attendees and supporters of the Games were allowed on the sidewalks because they had a particular purpose being there, namely, to access the venues reserved for their activities and to sell souvenirs. These purposes are entirely distinguishable from the plaintiffs' efforts to disrupt the events by protesting along the main thoroughfares of the Games."
"disrupt"? Their actions don't sound disruptive. In addition, if vendors selling souvenirs were every bit as much standing in the flow of pedestrians and if people stopped to transact business/sales and did so in no less a "restrictive" manner than those stopping to interact with those calling themselves Christians, then it is prima fascia that the Christians were discriminated against for content, as the vendors were also dealing in content but not asked to move or keep moving and then arrested for not moving to where they could not sell their products very easily at all, if at all. The opinion/decision is not well-reasoned or well-founded.
We hold that a reasonable factfinder could not in good conscience find that the plaintiffs were similarly-situated to other users of the sidewalks. Since there is no reliable evidence that there were other protestors who were treated differently, the district court appropriately granted summary judgment on the Equal Protection claims.
This view is claiming that only other protesters are apples-to-apples and that all non-protesters are as oranges to the apples of the Christians. However, a proper understanding of the Bill of Rights necessitates that the comparison be citizen-to-citizen and definitely not protester-to-protester. The decision is clearly discriminatory on account of political and religious speech and activity, including versus commercial activity.
Religious speech and activity under this ruling are relegated to a lesser protected position vis-a-vis the commercial activity of the vendors and possibly other activities of a non-commercial and non-religious / non-Christian-proselytizing nature.
Hawking goods is more protected than "marketing" the Good News of Jesus Christ.
Let me say that the distance that the Plaintiffs were asked to move is highly relevant. If the Plaintiffs were asked to move a very short distance and not completely away from the edge of the flow of pedestrians but refused to move out from the center of that flow, especially on a busy corner where pedestrians stop, wait, and then all begin to cross the street upon a green light, then the Plaintiffs were in the wrong at least in that instance/street-corner location.