WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court warily confronted a case Wednesday that mixes limits on free speech with issues of church-state separation, and could have a direct impact on Casper.

The justices engaged in lively arguments over a small religious group's efforts to place a monument in a public park that already is home to a Ten Commandments display.

The court seemed reluctant to accept the arguments put forth by the religious group known as the Summum that once a government accepts any donations for display in a public park, it must accept all.

"I mean, you have a Statue of Liberty -- do we have to have a statue of despotism? Or do we have to put any president who wants to be on Mount Rushmore?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked, acknowledging his examples might go a bit far.

Yet the court also was uncomfortable with the position of Pleasant Grove City, Utah, which rejected the Summum's request to erect a monument similar to the Ten Commandments marker that has stood in the city's Pioneer Park since 1971.

Justice David Souter wondered how the city could accept the Ten Commandments display and then say, "'We will not on identical terms take the Summum monument because we don't agree with the message...' Why isn't that a First Amendment violation?"

The Salt Lake City-based Summum wants to erect its "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" monument in the park. The Summum, formed in 1975, say the Seven Aphorisms were given to Moses on Mount Sinai along with the Ten Commandments. Moses destroyed the tablet containing the aphorisms because he saw the people weren't ready for them, the Summum say.

The Summum argued, and a federal appeals court agreed, that Pleasant Grove can't allow some private donations in its public park and reject others.

Pleasant Grove officials are supported by federal, state and city governments, plus veterans organizations.

The city of Casper filed a friend of the court brief because it has a monument of the Ten Commandments at its monument plaza near the Nicolaysen Art Museum.

During the planning for the plaza, Casper received a demand from Westboro Baptist Church pastor Fred Phelps who wanted to place a monument stating: "Matthew Shepard Entered Hell October 12,1998, in Defiance of God's Warning 'thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."

Shepard, a gay University of Wyoming student from Casper, was murdered 10 years ago and became a focus of Phelps' preaching and his Web site www.godhatesfags.com.

Casper turned down Phelps' request.

Casper and other governments and organizations worry that a ruling for the Summum would allow almost anyone to erect a monument in a public park, including people with hateful points of view, or lead to the removal of war memorials and other long-standing displays.

The Justice Department lawyer who took part in Wednesday's arguments in support of the city said governments act almost as museum curators when they decide to place some monuments in public parks and not others.

That position drew skeptical questioning from Justice John Paul Stevens, who asked whether the government could choose to omit from the black granite Vietnam memorial the names of gay soldiers.

Yes, said Deputy Solicitor General Daryl Joseffer, the government could leave off those names and not run afoul of the First Amendment. But doing so could present other constitutional problems, he said.

The Ten Commandments marker in Utah is under the control of the city, even though it was erected by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The city "can modify it, destroy it, drop it to the bottom of the ocean or sell it on eBay," Joseffer said.

The case appears to raise questions of government favoring one religion over another, which is prohibited by the First Amendment's establishment clause. But the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals resolved the dispute on free speech grounds.

Some religious and civic groups want the justices to order the appeals court to review the case by looking at the religious freedoms issue.

A decision is expected before the summer.

On the Web

A transcript of Wednesday's arguments can be found at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html

The case is 07-665, Pleasant Grove City v. Summum.

A transcript of Wednesday's arguments can be found at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html

The case is 07-665, Pleasant Grove City v. Summum.]]>