Judge throws anti-gay tees in legal hamper
A federal judge ruled yesterday that California's Poway Unified School District did not violate the First Amendment rights of former student Tyler Chase Harper when they sent him home for wearing a shirt reading: "Homosexuality is shameful. Romans 1:27"... "Be ashamed"... "Our school embraced what God has condemned." The Union-Tribune has more:
Student's rights not violated, judge rules [SD Union-Tribune]
We applaud, albeit with a tinge of hestinacy. Just with all of these cases, we're gonna again come down on the side that says that while schools must respect the free speech rights of all and allow any positive messages of both pro-gay and religious expression, they have every right to restrict messages that demean others. They have a responsibility to protect the children from harassment. In our opinion, using a Biblical condemnation to declare that God condemns queer people is deserving of reproach. Just change that condemnation so that it is against women or in favor of slavery (both of which could be Biblically justified), and ask yourself if there would be so much debate.
But that being said, we do understand that what is and is not hate-inciting speech can be up for debate, so this is the sort of thing that must be looked at on a situational basis. It's not an absolute situation in which we feel anyone can or should issue a blanket "yay" or "nay," but rather a complex matter with room for multifaceted opinions.
"A federal judge yesterday upheld a lower court ruling..."
J, that's not entirely correct. The judge was actually applying a new standard of analysis handed down from a higher court, not reviewing a decision from a lower court.
The pedigree of this litigation is longer and more complicated than most people need to worry about. Just call it a victory. :-)
Posted by: KipEsquire | Feb 14, 2008 9:59:22 AM
Thanks Kip..I'll change it.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 14, 2008 10:02:37 AM
Before commenting on this, as u know, XGW recently did not allow my comments posting defending Reverends Hutcheson & Smid. The evil piece of turd David Roberts knows that I don't have e-mail anymore which is why I wrote no e-mail & he used deceit on the website on why he did not allow my posting:
David Roberts, on February 12th, 2008 at 12:28 pm Said:
To the commenter named “MW,” your comment is welcome and will be posted when you include a legitimate email address. The comment box asks for an email and we do require an honest response otherwise you would not be asked to give supply it. We do not use these unless we need to privately communicate with you concerning posting issues, and we never release them or share them, with anyone. If you want to avoid rewriting the comment, just send your address to me at email@example.com. We appreciate your participation.
Even after I reposted & gave my mom's e-mail address explaining on the site that I don't have e-mail & that he could ask my mom if she granted me permission to use her address, he still refused to post it. David Roberts used deceit & it would have been honest if he had simply refused to allow my posting on the grounds that he does not like my opinion rather than makeup what he knows is false, after I explained that I don't have e-mail & that I'm posting from a public library. If David Roberts is honest, then he'll delete what he posted. What I had written on XGW repeats what I've written before about making it a crime to perform sex change maimings, how Martina Navratilova picks & chooses when to protest animal cruelty & abortion, which Good As You know about well. I also had wanted to post that contrary to what Jim Burroway & Mike Airhart have said, most married couples do not engage in oral sex & sodomy. They only engage in straight missionary activity (penis entering vagina) & that there are nations where a man & his wife can go to jail for engaging in oral sex & sodomy.
It has been my observation that XGW, Box Turtle Bulletin & Dr. Throckmorton's site involve posters repeating the same things & it does not involve a dialogue between those who differ. I had posted on XGW with the hope of generating dialogue, but they're n/i in that.
As far as this California student. Free speech must be protected. There was a similar case where pupils @ a California school were suspended for carrying signs "sodomy is sin" after hearing H&L activists speak. Now I don't believe schools are the place to discuss homosexuality. But if H&L groups are going to go on school campuses & discuss it, then it's only just that people who see something wrong with H&L activities be permitted to give their views even if the H&L groups don't like it. The California student mentioned in the article could have worn a T Shirt which says "Warning, homosexual & lesbian activities cause cancer." I'm not a religous person, so that would have been acceptable in a public school. The California pupil could also have worn a T shirt which says "Warning, sex change maimings are harmful, a boy can not become a girl & vice versa."
This youth wore the T shirt because he has had it with H&L groups pushing their views onto him. He wanted to give his view & I defend him, because he did it in reaction. In California, they require public school teachers to push the view that H&L activities are OK, w/o opposing views. Teachers & students who say that homosexual activities are harmful in public schools face sanctions. This is sad & a violation of free speech rights.
You know that I justify abortion in some cases for reasons I raised on another post, but I don't need to go to a public school to tell pupils this. Even if I did go to a public school & start telling pupils that abortions are sometimes justified, I won't censor opposing replies as I realize that not every1 is going to share the same views.
Whether it's abortion, gun control or homosexuality, I'm against politics being discussed in public schools. It's the homo groups who have pushed their views on students in the classroom. Perhaps if H&L groups didn't push 1 sided views then maybe that teenager would not have worn the T-Shirt. I used to have a neutral view of homosexuality until 2005, after I comprehended that homosexual groups are pushing it on others & not allowing open dialogue.
The claim that the homosexual groups speak to inform public school kids that homosexuals exist is crap, because almost every1 knows that. The true motive is to proselytize the view that homosexuality is OK & it's not about open dialogue. If they cared about open dialogue, then they won't censor those who see something wrong with men having sex with men. If u see something wrong with men having sex with men & women having sex with women, then u should speak ur mind, if some1 is pushing their views on u. What's even sadder are cases such as Robert Smith in Maryland who was fired in June 2006 by then Gov. Ehrlich after he said on a TV show OUTSIDE work hours that he sees something wrong with homo&lesbian sexual activities & the homosexual groups did not tolerate his view & urged his firing.
I'm siding with this student mentioned by you, because eventhough he violated the separation of church & state by bringing religion into the public schools, I side with him because it was the homosexual groups who raised the issue 1st & it's the homo groups that seek to censor opposing views.
Posted by: missionaryway | Feb 15, 2008 12:06:23 PM
You know Missionary Way, your arguments might've been more compelling if
1. you hadn't started your commen by calling another blogger an "evil turd"
2. proceeded to air your grievances with that blogger here despite that fact that it's not relevant to the topic here
3. rambled without any real focus or coherency
Also, I'd note that the reason that gay students and adults have brought the issue of homosexuality into the school is because many students are harassed and bullied for being gay (or even just being perceived as being gay) in those same schools.
Posted by: Jarred | Feb 17, 2008 7:04:47 PM
Thank u Jarred for ur thoughts. Yes, my speeches are monologues & you can see long monologues I've written about many different topics incl. the fact that there were reasonable doubts in the OJ Simpson case recently, & that if he did it, then it was 2d Degree Murder as a result of provocation by the 2 victims, because ordinary people can commit murder if given the circumstances. I've been to rape, murder & aggravated battery trials & yes, any1 is capable of committing murder if given the circumstances. You have to judge each case by it's own facts. If OJ Simpson is innocent, then he knows who did it & there are many unanswered ?s. The press reports 1/2 truths on the OJ Simpson case, which is why I don't watch alot of TV anymore. OJ Simpson was acquitted because of reasonable doubts, not because of the race card.
I don't watch the news that much anymore, because so many journalists incl. Fox News repeat the same crap. Attorneys Gloria Allred & Wendy Murphy talk alot of rubbish on FOX News, which is why I ignore what they say, because they don't care if men accused of committing crimes against women are innocent or guilty, their attitude is convict them all.
But anyhow, to the main point now to what you wrote. Yes, committing violence against others is wrong & if a pupil or adult is being a victim of school violence, then those who commit it must be punished, incl. expulsion from school. I could comprehend your point incl. that of this site if this student had worn a T-Shirt inciting violence, but this was not the case. He gave his view of what he thinks of homo&lesbian sexual activities & was suspended for it. OK, he violated Federal Law of the separation of Church & State by bringing religion into the discussion, which would be the same as if he had worn a T-shirt which says "God will help you quit drugs". He should not have raised religion, but as noted, I still side with him because I comprehend why he wore the shirt & I would have let him stay in school eventhough he broke the Federal law.
I recognize that people will do things as they see fit. Homo&lesbian sexual activities between willful adults are legal. I've worked in different places incl. with homosexuals & it's been my observation that quite a few though not all, do proselytize. If H&l groups simply lived their own lives & not pushed their views on others such as what happened to Robert Smith in Maryland or what happened to Dr. Christopher Kempling in Canada or the other victim Rolf Szabo-fired by Kodak after 23 years after he politely told Kodak not to send him e-mails regarding homosexuality, then I wouldn't care so much. If H&L groups simply said that they're adults who'll live their lives as they see fit, but that they won't punish others who see something wrong with their sex lives, then I would tolerate. But sadly that hasn't been the case, for reasons already given.
Most of the press hasn't written articles empathizing with what happened to Rolf Szabo, Dr. Chris Kempling & Robert Smith. The information I've found regarding their plight has been usu. from religious sites. While I'm not a religious person (though I'm not an atheist), I'll admit that religion gets discussed a little bit too much by NARTH, but with that aside, NARTH does raise many good points, as does Dr. N.E. Whitehead. They should simply keep the discussion limited to main points & only discuss religion incidentally, as not every1 is religious.
Posted by: missionaryway | Feb 20, 2008 11:50:49 AMcomments powered by Disqus