City can bar 'family values' message (Flier with no mention of homosexuality deemed 'homophobic')

World Net Daily ^ | February 17, 2005 | World Net Daily

[ViLaLuz]

A federal court ruled the city of Oakland had a right to bar two employees from posting a flier promoting traditional family values on an office bulletin board.

Employees Regina Rederford and Robin Christy posted the flier in response to an e-mail to city employees announcing formation of a gay and lesbian employee association. The two responded with a promotion of their own -- the start of an informal group that respects "the natural family, marriage and family values."

But supervisors Robert Bobb, then city manager, and Joyce Hicks, then deputy director of the Community and Economic Development Agency, ordered removal of the flier, stating it contained "statements of a homophobic nature" and promoted "sexual-orientation-based harassment," even though it made no mention of homosexuality.

A July 2003 lawsuit by Rederford and Christy claimed the city's anti-discrimination policy "promotes homosexuality" and "openly denounces Christian values."

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker dismissed the case Tuesday, ruling the two women did not have their First Amendment rights violated.

Richard Ackerman, whose public-interest law firm Lively and Ackerman represents the two women, said he will fight the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The notion that an employee cannot mention the natural family in the workplace is absurd," he told WorldNetDaily. "Cities should not be run by neo-fascist homosexual advocates. This ruling allows just that."

City Attorney John Russo said in a statement the city "will fight vigorously to defend the policies and practices which protect employees from any form of discrimination."

Ackerman said the case is significant, because a decision against the employees could silence debate about homosexuality and related issues in the state of California.

The flier in question was posted Jan. 3, 2003, on an employee bulletin board where a variety of political and sexually oriented causes are promoted. Titled, "Preserve Our Workplace With Integrity," the entire text said:

Good News Employee Associations is a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family values.

If you would like to be a part of preserving integrity in the Workplace call Regina Rederford @xxx-xxxx or Robin Christy @xxx-xxxx

The flyer was removed the same day, however, by order of Hicks.

In a Feb. 20 memo announcing a newly revised workplace anti-discrimination policy, Hicks noted recent incidents of employees "inappropriately posting materials" in violation of that policy.

"Specifically," she wrote according to a copy obtained by WND, "flyers were placed in public view which contained statements of a homophobic nature and were determined to promote sexual orientation-based harassment."

The complaint charges Hicks and Bobb violated their clients' constitutional right to "pray, associate, communicate religious ideas, and worship" according to the U.S. Constitution and the laws and regulations of the city of Oakland.

Ackerman said he will file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals within 10 days, but expects the case to be settled by the Supreme Court.

"This case sets a horrible precedent that suggests that the only thoughts and words allowed in a public workplace are those that support the homosexual agenda," he said. "The city of Oakland has interpreted this ruling to mean that Christianity has no place in our society and should be subject to punishment."

Previous stories:

Is opposing same-sex marriage 'hate speech'?

City ties 'family values' to 'homophobia'
 

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

BTTT

If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.

[OhioAttorney]

Exactly right. The flier was a deliberately snarky response to an email announcing the formation of a gay-lesbian group, and the noise about 'Christians being thrown to the lions' is so much malarkey.

Neveretheless, if the original email was sent by city employees, there's a good argument that these two women should have been entitled to post a flier even if it was partly or entirely in 'response'. Of course if the original email came from somewhere else altogether, their claim is groundless -- as it would be in any case if they were employed in the private sector.

Either way, if these two women want to promote their faith and 'respond' to gays and lesbians, they should do it on their own time and their own dime. If the judge in this case is wrong, it's not because he's a 'judicial activist'.

[TommyDale]

Heterophobia!

[Brian Allen]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895260506/102-7883969-9800919 -- Mark Levin's Men in Black -- How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America

[OhioAttorney]

Thanks, I'm already familiar with it.

[teeman8r]

the court is assuming the flier is discriminatory against homosexuals, but the flier didn't say that homosexuals were banned from the discussion group of "natural family values"

pc america is no place to live... as an american i have a birthright to be able to think the way i want, say what i want and associate with whom i want to... yes to discriminate if i wish to... it is human nature, it is evolutionary, it is an american ideal... if you don't like it, go somewhere else.

teeman

[OhioAttorney]

the court is assuming the flier is discriminatory against homosexuals, but the flier didn't say that homosexuals were banned from the discussion group of "natural family values"

The issue here is free speech, not 'discrimination'. It doesn't matter what the group does, it matters what the flier says. And the court is correctly recognizing (not 'assuming') that the flier was posted as a response to the formation of a gay-lesbian group. It's got nothing to do with who they do or don't admit to the group.

pc america is no place to live... as an american i have a birthright to be able to think the way i want, say what i want and associate with whom i want to... yes to discriminate if i wish to... it is human nature, it is evolutionary, it is an american ideal... if you don't like it, go somewhere else.

Actually you have that birthright as a human being, not as an American; your rights are recognized, not created, by the Constitution. At any rate the ruling in this case doesn't affect your right to think, speak, and associate as you please (on your own time and dime).

I wonder why none of the people so outraged by this ruling are concerned that a couple of public employees are hiding behind the First Amendment to try to make courts force a city to post fliers that any private-sector employer could simply prohibit.

Oops, 'scuse me -- I should say 'using the First Amendment'. 'Hiding behind it' is something only liberals do.

[DBeers]

Either way, if these two women want to promote their faith and 'respond' to gays and lesbians...

Didn't you get the memo? The correct terminology is HOMOSEXUALS!

[Smartaleck]

"an e-mail to city employees announcing formation of a gay and lesbian employee association."

Heterophobic hate speech?

[OhioAttorney]

Heterophobic hate speech?

That's exactly the problem as I see it. If one is a problem, the other should be too -- and the city (being a municipal government) probably does have some sort of equal-protection obligation not to prohibit one if it permits the other.

[OhioAttorney]

A minor self-correction here. I wrote:

The issue here is free speech, not 'discrimination'.

Actually 'discrimination' is obliquely implicated too, because the flier is said to have violated the city's 'anti-discrimination policy'. However, the issue is not whether the group 'discriminates' in who it admits, but whether the statement in the flier itself is 'discriminatory' in some sense. My point is that that's not the First Amendment issue.

[Maverick32984]

Religion is just as much as free speech as homosexuality is. If it's permissible for a gay and lesbian employee association to start by using company email/bulletin boards, then there shouldn't be anything wrong with what these two women did.

[OhioAttorney]

Basically, I agree, and I think that's the best argument for their First Amendment claim.

One possible hitch is that the flier does look like it was intended to be a snarky attack on the gay-lesbian ('scuse me, DBeers; 'homosexual') employee group, whereas the original email apparently didn't attack anybody. Another is that the flier would appear on the bulletin board permanently whereas an email can easily be deleted.

At the very least, though, the two women should probably have been permitted to send out an email announcing the formation of their employee group even if they had to adjust the wording a bit.

Again, it's worth pointing out constantly that the only reason these two women even have a First Amendment claim is that their employer is a municipal government. In all likelihood a private employer could have prohibited their flier with no problem, and perhaps even fired them for posting it.

[unbalanced but fair]

Wouldn't a "Gay and Lesbian Employee Association" and the e-mail promoting it also be discriminatory? When I worked in a government program we were not allowed to post anything. There's more to be known about this situation. But if the City was formimg a Gay Employee Association that would be a problem. We couldn't even post forming a softball team!

[goldstategop]

Its still verboten to advocate Red State values - even if you never criticize homosexuals. So much for liberal tolerance and protection of free speech. We don't need no steenken' tolerance towards homophobic bigots and in any case a public employer can decide what speech can be expressed on public property.

Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."

[sasafras]

This is why we can not continue to look the other way - for too long Christians, social conservatives and republicans have not said anything fearing to be called a name. The game is up we do not have to hide anymore JJ, PUSH, NOW, DNC, AFL-CIO, LaMecha, LaRaza, GLBT - these are all racist and anti-christian/jewish organizations. Wake up - they HATE us and we need to battle them for the good of our country and our children. There are many lurkers/Freepers on here who will try to put you down for upholding family values - almost all of them are liberals sent from the DU.

Thanks for the post.

[Maverick32984]

"The flier in question was posted Jan. 3, 2003, on an employee bulletin board where a variety of political and sexually oriented causes are promoted."

I think there are more facts to this case than we might realize. If this bulletin board is a respository of "political and sexually oriented causes" then how can we argue that this flier was in DIRECT response to the e-mail? They could have conceptualized this idea for a group for a while and only have been coincidence.

Even if it wasn't coincidence, if someone in that office posted a "Michael Moore Supporters Club" poster and the next day another employee posted a "Michael Moore Haters Club" poster, is that in direct response to the first poster? Yes. Is it free-speech though? Yes!

But the flier the women used didn't even mention homosexuality. You can only judge someone's free speech based on the content, not supposed "snarky" attacks or hidden messages. The women are responsible for what they said in the flier, they are not responsible for how someone might feel after reading the flier.

[OhioAttorney]

Wouldn't a "Gay and Lesbian Employee Association" and the e-mail promoting it also be discriminatory?

Very possibly, which is why I say this is the best argument for their First Amendment claim: if the city permitted one, it should permit the other.

The hitch is that it's possible to argue (not that I agree, just that it's possible to argue) that the 'anti-discrimination' policy prohibits the flier but not the original email. But even in that case, I still think the two women should have been allowed to send out an email announcing the formation of their own group.

[OhioAttorney]

But the flier the women used didn't even mention homosexuality. You can only judge someone's free speech based on the content, not supposed "snarky" attacks or hidden messages. The women are responsible for what they said in the flier, they are not responsible for how someone might feel after reading the flier.

The article itself states explicitly that the two women posted the flier as a response to the email.

Besides, if I saw that flier at my workplace I'd know exactly what they meant, and I think you would too.

[FourtySeven]

While we're carrying on about those silly, silly judges, let's bear in mind that these two women are public employees, and all that's happened is that they've been denied access to a tax-supported bulletin board that a private employer wouldn't be required to provide in the first place.

I disagree with the judge's ruling in this case and I expect it will be overturned on appeal. But it doesn't shove anything down your throat; it merely limits what government employees are allowed to do while at work on the public dime.

If they don't like it, they can always get jobs in the private sector and see how many fliers they're allowed to post.

I have the same general misgivings about these types of situations, as if employees expect they have a "right" to do whatever they want at work, except work! However, given the following, it seems pretty clear to me that these two women were treated unfairly: (from the article)

Employees Regina Rederford and Robin Christy posted the flier in response to an e-mail to city employees announcing formation of a gay and lesbian employee association.

--snip--

The flier in question was posted Jan. 3, 2003, on an employee bulletin board where a variety of political and sexually oriented causes are promoted.

So, the gays not only get to distribute a "company wide" e-mail about their group, anyone else who forms an alternate group is disciplined? This is obviously a case of discrimination. I'm glad the women brought it to the courts.

What really should be done all across the country, especially in our "public offices", is less focus on all these "groups" and "special activities", and more focus on WORK (which is what you implied of course)

This was an important case to bring though.