ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — A federal judge rejected a conservative Christian group’s attempt to remove the no-fly zone over Walt Disney World so planes could trail banners touting an antigay website over the theme park during Gay Days festivities.

U.S. District Judge Anne C. Conway said the Virginia-based Family Policy Network did not meet the burden of proof necessary to provide a temporary restraining order against the Federal Aviation Administration’s restrictions. The rules were adopted to prevent possible terrorist attacks.

Conway also said she did not believe she had jurisdiction over the FAA’s policies.

Family Policy Network and co-plaintiff Airsign, a North Carolina aerial advertising company, sued the federal government June 4, alleging the no-fly zone violates their free speech rights. The group wanted to hire Airsign planes to pull banners reading: “JESUS CHRIST: HOPE FOR HOMOSEXUALS.COM” over the park.

FAA restrictions say that planes must remain at least 3,000 feet above the park or stay at least three nautical miles away. A no-fly zone also covers Disneyland and the company’s neighboring California Adventure in Anaheim, California.

The 13th annual Gay Days celebration, a four-day event which started June 5, was expected to draw more than 100,000 gay and lesbian tourists. While Disney doesn’t sponsor Gay Days — it has several outside organizers — the Magic Kingdom theme park is the hub of the activities.

“Airspace is a free-First Amendment zone,” Glover said. “And we wanted to make sure that we could have the opportunity to explain the same home in Jesus Christ that we’ve found.”

Glover added that on Saturday, June 7, the peak of Gay Days, banner planes were scheduled to fly outside the protected zone, as well as over other central Florida theme parks such as Universal Orlando.

“We’re going to have other opportunities to share the message that we want to share, and we’re going to take those opportunities and hope that this is corrected somewhere down the line,” Glover said.

But during the hour-long hearing, Department of Justice attorney Brian Kennedy argued that the First Amendment had little to do with no-fly zones.

“The problem is not that it’s an attractive target for speech,” Kennedy said. “The problem is, it’s an attractive target.”

Disney has repeatedly said the “safety and enjoyment” of its guests were the reasons the company wanted the no-fly zones, and wants them maintained.

“We believe this is a well-founded decision by the court,” said Disney spokesperson Rena Callahan, who refused to comment further.

The suit listed the FAA, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Transportation Security Administration as defendants.

The FAA has refused to comment, aside from saying the no-fly regulations were part of an appropriations package approved by Congress in February and any attempt to repeal them would have to be addressed through legislation.