Pensacola’s City Council on Monday rejected the thrust of Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier’s demand that the city cancel “A Drag Queen Christmas,” with members describing his letter as “personal opinion,” questioning its legal analysis and declining to take any action in response.
Uthmeier’s letter, sent last week, urges the city to cancel the 18‑and‑up, ticketed drag performance outright. He labels the show “obscene,” “anti‑religious” and “anti‑Christian,” contends it “openly mocks” Christmas, and warns that performers could engage in “obscene behavior” near children attending the nearby Winterfest street festival. He argues the Saenger’s management contract gives the city broad discretion to pull the plug without facing a “meaningful First Amendment challenge” and cautions that allowing the event to proceed could expose the city to claims of religious discrimination, public‑nuisance allegations or liability under Florida’s obscenity and lewd‑exhibition laws. City Attorney Adam Cobb has previously warned that canceling the show could invite constitutional litigation and expose the city to contractual liability.
That divide framed Monday’s discussion, and several council members made clear the attorney general’s intervention did not alter their view of the city’s legal posture. Councilmember Charles Bare — the lone member who did not even want to discuss the letter — delivered the sharpest critique.
“With all due respect to the Attorney General's office," he said, "this was an unsolicited opinion ... As far as I'm concerned, this is his personal opinion written on government letterhead wasting taxpayer dollars.”
Council Vice President Allison Patton said she, too, had heard strong opinions from residents but viewed the attorney general’s letter as unusual and deserving of a careful read. She noted that the same tour is scheduled to appear later this year in St. Petersburg at a publicly owned venue and questioned why Pensacola received a warning while the other city did not.
Patton, herself an attorney, also faulted the letter’s treatment of constitutional issues.
“I looked at this with my attorney hat on," she said. "… There was a passing reference to the First Amendment … less than a thorough vetting of this issue."
If the council wanted a definitive answer, she said, it could retain independent constitutional counsel. Patton also suggested that if the attorney general was confident in his position, he could remove the city’s financial risk.
“If the Attorney General wants to indemnify us," she said, "... I would think we'd want to have a discussion about that.”
Council President Jared Moore said he placed the matter on the agenda to give members a chance to ask questions and to allow the administration to address any concerns.
“It didn't seem prudent to just ignore it," he said, later adding “It seems like what's been guiding the city up to this point is the Constitution … and I don't know that this letter changed anything for me.”
