Passive Displays and Hecklers' Vetoes

 Let me start with a general question before we discuss the Establishment Clause issue in these cases. 

Suppose an LGBT group got permission from the city of Pittsburgh to put up an artistic display celebrating “Marriage Equality Week.”  The display was located on the Grand Staircase of the County Courthouse.  Further suppose that another group of citizens, calling themselves the “family values coalition,” publicly demanded that the City remove the display. 

Would it be correct to refer to this attempt to get rid of the marriage equality display as censorship? As what the law calls a hecklers’ veto?

If the City removed the display to appease the protesters, would this be a case in which liberty was advanced or one in which liberty is inhibited?

Should we allow offended observers, who could easily have averted their eyes from the display, to deprive the willing audience for the display of an opportunity to view and enjoy it?

If so, again apart from the Establishment Clause, is the attempt in the Allegheny County case to remove the Creche and Menorah displays accurately referred to as censorship?

Now let me read you a comment and get your response to it:

The Establishment Clause does not expressly require government to engage in censorship of the art government chooses to sponsor.  The First Amendment is generally quite hostile to censorship of all kinds.  Therefore, in the absence of clear historical evidence demonstrating that the Establishment Clause was designed to require that which the First Amendment generally forbids, the Court should not interfere with public displays celebrating events of historical or cultural significance merely because they contain or recognize symbols of religious significance.

What are your comments?