Skip to comments.Union Square kicks out young carolers Grade-school kids get boot for lack of permit from city
Posted on 12/05/2004 10:01:45 AM PST by SmithL
Two dozen San Francisco schoolkids sporting white turtlenecks and Santa hats got a very un-Christmaslike civics lesson the other day when they showed up at Union Square hoping to delight Christmas shoppers with holiday carols.
"They just wanted to set up next to the Christmas tree and sing,'' said Donna Vargas, one of the parents who escorted the fifth- and sixth-graders from San Francisco Day School on Friday's outing.
Instead, they got the boot.
Seems they didn't have a city permit -- so after a brief run-in with the park's security, the kids were shooed away.
"How can children not be allowed to sing in a public park?'' Vargas fumed. "I can see if they were street performers or passing a hat. But they are not raising money or soliciting anybody.''
Maybe not, said Mary McCue, president of MJM Management Group, which oversees the square's security. But under city rules, any organized activity at Union Square requires a permit from the city's Rec and Park Department.
"We try to look the other way a lot, but this was just a big group,'' McCue said. "And there is a whole liability issue. If a kid falls on the step, they're going to automatically sue Rec and Park and me.''
Parents and bystanders were soon on the line to the mayor's office to complain.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I wouldn't let them stop me and my kids from singing. We'd just politely say okay, no problem and walk down the street singing our hearts out.
We don't want this to happen, of course, but if a terrorist dirty bomb ever detonates in a U.S. city, this depraved city and Las Vegas would be the terrorists first choice. San Francisco should form its own little country.
All they had to do was sing the carols in Spanish and no one would have dared to say anything. ;)
That whole liability issue was just a smokescreen being used to attack religious people!How stupid can one get to believe that, because any person there could sue for any lameheaded reason."San Fransissyco",another American city that trashes tradition.
If they had only said they were there to entertain the homeless out of compassion nothing would have happened.
Remember, in San Francsico only the motivation counts not the action itself. For example, Food Not Bombs has never been rousted for any of their stunts.
"Yet shoeless crackheads get free reign to bug the crap out of us wherever we go downtown..."
Last I heard, the city was handing out cash money. Is that still going on?
>>If a kid falls on the step, they're going to automatically sue Rec and Park and me.<<
Classic case of a 'rat projecting her own diseased values onto the community at large. This is why these germs thought Silky Pony was a good candidate...
What took you so long?
I would bet money that the city would welcome a few perverse holiday songs from the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.
Personally, I think the line has been crossed. Time to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots. Yet we stand back calmly and rant and rave and watch them rewrite history, and destroy what few rights we have left and expect to win in a system loaded with activist commie judges. Sorry folks. It won't work.
Time for civil disobedience...at the very least.
Our Founders are rolling in their graves.
In any case, why would a bunch of kids want to sing in a park where the sidewalks are covered with human feces? I can't imagine Union Square in S.F. being much of a "holiday spirit" kind of place under any circumstances.
any attorneys out there up to challenging this POLICY? I don't think it would stand up to a real court-and-public-opinion onslaught....
Well, the new mayor started a program called "care not cash" and the far-left wing media (which is main-stream out here) totally hates it, so that means it must be working...
Here's some govt info on it...
Believe or not, it's not any worse than Time Square in NYC, I believe they have security during business hours, it's right by ritzy hotels and a huge Macy's, it gets really "Christmassy" this time of year...
Union Square - SF
In S.F., public parks are for crack whores and homos in the bushes. There is no place for children, especially Christian (yecch) children!
In that whacked out city, I am amazed that there are two dozen kids that have even heard of Christmas.
They could have run around naked and done perverted acts, and all would have been fine.
(Sarcasm on, please. No offense intended.) Then bring a paper that the rep of the group...can use as a poop scoop should the nasty little darlings decide to soil the park with their presence. (sarcasm off)
It will be interesting to see whether children intent on celebrating Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Muslim and Hindu holidays, or pagans anticipating the coming "winter solstice" will also be shooed away from the park. I doubt it. One must not offend people of other faiths. Now, I believe this with all my heart. Why, then, is it deemed acceptable for the thought police and the political correctionists to suppress Christianity and hence to offend the so-called "faith of the majority" by declaring that this faith will offend those who subscribe to the so-called "minority" faiths? We seriously need to expose these multiculturalists for the lowlife ANTICULTURALISTS (even Karl Marx called them the "lumpenproletariat") that they truly are at heart, and to expose their political correctness as the most dangerous form of fundamentalism ever to grab hold of the popular imagination in the United States.
"Separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, but in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. If truth be told, church (and that means ALL faiths) may enter government, but government may NOT enter the church so defined. In other words, political discourse, in order to be inclusive and all-encompassing, must allow and "tolerate" religious-based discourse. Those who engage in religious discourse must expect to be confronted and insulted for their political conceptions of the state. Government may neither favor nor suppress any religious or secular political discourse except that which openly threatens violence against the body politic. Do we really think the city officials involved in harassing children intent on having a good time and merely expressing who they are would understand such a line of argument?