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?

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Email This 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”

  1. Jay on June 11th, 2009 8:02 pm

    I don’t have a problem with it. What made someone complain?

  2. William Teach on June 11th, 2009 8:43 pm

    You know there is always some busy body who wants to ruin a good time for others.

  3. edward cropper on June 11th, 2009 10:21 pm

    He has a hot air gorilla, there have been hot air baboons in Washington for years so what’s the beef?

  4. Deuce Geary on June 12th, 2009 3:13 am

    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?

  5. kerwin on June 12th, 2009 7:08 am

    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.

  • Advertise

  • Donate

  • Our Store

    • ACLU Bulldozer
    • Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
  • Syndicate Me