An Inflatable Giant Gorilla Is Not A Constitutional Right
Your “huh?” story of the day
The Constitutional right to have a giant inflatable gorilla in a bathing suit and sunglasses, grabbing consumer attention from a Houston business rooftop is the key issue in a trial that began in federal court on Wednesday.
Jim Purtee, owner of Houston Balloons & Promotions, is in court arguing the city of Houston violated his business’ constitutional right to equal protection in the arbitrary enforcement of city sign codes and should pay him damages of $938,241.
Purtee is fighting the city over an ordinance it stopped enforcing when he filed this lawsuit in 2006. But Purtee complains his customers remained antsy and he and his army of 450 inflatable eagles, rabbits, pumpkins, Santas and hot-air-balloon-shaped balloons have suffered for it.
“It cost us a lot of money and it wasn’t incidental,” he said.
A judge said the enforcement was arbitrary, the city says they enforced when someone complained. Using the equal protection clause is an interesting one, but, seriously, the Right to fly giant balloons? What’s your call?
Email This
Posted by William Teach on June 11, 2009 7:20 pm
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Constitution, News
Trackback URL:
Comments
5 Responses to “An Inflatable Giant Gorilla Is Not A Constitutional Right”

















I don’t have a problem with it. What made someone complain?
You know there is always some busy body who wants to ruin a good time for others.
He has a hot air gorilla, there have been hot air baboons in Washington for years so what’s the beef?
What do you mean it’s not a constitutional right? Are you forgetting about the inflatable emanation from the primate penumbra of the 5th amendment?
I would give it to the city because the government often arbitrarily enforces the law. There is always the “no harm no foul” guideline that courts themselves use to arbitrarily enforce the law.