Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier insinuates that the drag show scheduled at the Saenger Theatre is somehow religious persecution and religious discrimination in his letter to the Pensacola City Council.
Uthmeier builds this narrative with these allegations:
- The show specifically targets Christianity for mockery.
- The city is platforming and endorsing this anti-Christian content.
- Using public property for anti-Christian speech constitutes government-sanctioned religious persecution.
- This persecution may amount to actionable religious discrimination.
Note the hedging: He says it “may amount to religious discrimination.” He also wrote that not cancelling the show “may subject the City to further legal scrutiny” – not that it definitively violates the law. Uthmeier knows this is legally shaky ground.
- The entire letter frames the issue as Christians versus the city government rather than what it actually is: some citizens objecting to constitutionally protected speech they find offensive. Read AGJU LTR to Pensacola_Final
What is Religious Discrimination?
Religious discrimination typically requires showing someone was treated differently because of their religion – denied employment, housing, services, or benefits. The AG cites in his footnotes:
- Florida Constitution art. I, §§ 2–3: General rights provisions and religious freedom protections.
- § 760.01(2), Fla. Stat.: Part of Florida’s Civil Rights Act covering employment and public accommodations discrimination.
Neither supports his theory that allowing critical speech about religion at a public venue constitutes discrimination.
The Fundamental Problems:
1. No Identifiable Victim: Who exactly is being discriminated against? Christians aren’t being denied access to the theater, city services, or any benefit. They’re simply offended by speech they find blasphemous.
2. Public Forum vs. Government Endorsement: The Saenger Theatre operates as a public forum rented to private performers. The city allowing the show isn’t endorsing its content any more than it endorses every concert, play, or event held there. If this theory held, the government could be sued for “discrimination” every time it allowed speech critical of any group on public property.
3. First Amendment Collision: The AG’s theory would give religious groups veto power over speech they find offensive on government property. That itself would violate the First Amendment’s prohibition on government censorship based on religious objections.
4. Mockery Doesn’t Equal Discrimination: Offensive or blasphemous speech about religion isn’t discrimination. If it were, every comedy club, theater, and bookstore that hosted content critical of religion could face discrimination claims. The First Amendment protects the right to criticize, mock, and challenge religious beliefs.
What This Letter Really Is:
Attorney General Uthmeire wants to redefine religious discrimination to mean “allowing speech that offends religious people” – a concept that has no legal foundation.
Courts have consistently held that:
- Government cannot censor speech simply because it offends religious sensibilities.
- Allowing critical or even blasphemous speech isn’t discrimination against believers.
- Religious freedom protects the right to practice religion, not the right to be free from criticism.
The Tell:
Uthmeier doesn’t cite a single case where a court found that allowing offensive speech about religion constituted actionable religious discrimination. That’s because no such case exists. This is legal theory invention designed to intimidate.
If you like our reporting, consider buying us a cup of coffee – here. Your donation will help broaden our reporting. Thank you.