San Diego city officials did not violate the free-speech rights of four firefighters when a fire supervisor ordered them to participate in last year’s Pride parade, Superior Court Judge Michael Anello has ruled. That guts the firefighters’ suit. Here’s why.

In short, the firefighters argued that the city required them to support a political message with which they disagreed. But Pride is not a “No on 8” parade, any more than Martin Luther King Day is a “Vote for Obama” procession.

The Pride parade is a community celebration. For close to 20 years, the city of San Diego has had a city ordinance endorsing non-discrimination based upon sexual orientation. That’s all that Pride promotes.

In winning this portion of the lawsuit, City Attorney Michael Aguirre did an excellent job of presenting what is a rather complex area of law. As a result, he will seek reimbursement for court costs and legal expenses incurred by the taxpayers and will move to dismiss the rest of the firefighters’ suit.

Charles LiMandri, attorney for the firefighters, had indicated he is not charging the firefighters for his services and that he is paying court costs.

But when the judge rules on the motion for costs and fees, that judgment will be against the four firefighters.

The remaining sexual harassment claim may be retried in January. Judge Anello will not hear the case because he will be on the federal bench. But it’s more than likely that Anello or a new judge will dismiss the harassment claim, because although the firefighters claimed their distress resulted from the city requiring them to be at an event that clashed with their moral and political beliefs, at trial, even their own video did not show them receiving anything but applause and cheers. After all, we don’t care whether the police and firefighters who march are gay or straight, pro-8 or anti-8. We cheer them because we know they put their lives on the line for us and we are grateful.

But whether firefighters choose or are ordered to march, the legal issue is the same. As city employees, who swear to uphold non-discrimination laws, firefighters cannot pick and choose whom to serve any more than city employees can opt out of civic events hosted by ethnic or religious groups they take issue with.

So, without the First Amendment issue in this case, it’s up in smoke.

I predicted this outcome last year when I said that this was a case that “even Mike Aguirre could win.” He has, and we applaud him and his staff. However, their work will, no doubt, be ongoing, as Charles LiMandri likely will exhaust every appeal in a desperate campaign to denigrate gays and lesbians at any cost. It’s just like the “Yes on 8” commercials. LiMandri has donated thousands to “Yes on 8” and he is aligned with the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund (ADF).

Aguirre noted that, during jury selection in the firefighters’ case, LiMandri identified prospective jurors who were gay, and then he challenged them over objections from the city. The judge removed them.

Lawyers and legal scholars can argue about tactics and the finer points of arcane rules of civil procedure in this case. But, in the end, in all probability, there are four firefighters whose names will appear on legal documents showing that they lost this case. Courts will order them to pay thousands in court costs incurred by the city and perhaps legal fees. We hope LiMandri and the ADF will indemnify them for these costs.

The U.S. Supreme Court last week refused to review a federal appellate court decision (Parker v. Hurley) that ruled against parents who did not want their children told that same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts (and now Connecticut).

Proposition 8 supporters use this case to scare voters into thinking schools must teach homosexual marriage and sex to children.

If that were true, one would imagine that at least four of the seven Republican conservative justices on the Supreme Court would have wanted to hear the case.

But that isn’t the case. Normally, if even one justice feels strongly, he or she writes a writes a dissenting opinion to the denial for review.

That didn’t happen here.

The U.S. Supreme Court has, without much notice from the press, refused to review (and thus overturn) dozens of pro-gay cases.