Posted on 02/17/2005 2:42:11 AM PST by 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'
But my point is that even though we might know exactly what they meant, that doesn't make it against the law.
We can only judge the women's flier based on its content, not on other people's interpretations.
It's free speech. If we go through society and never see or hear something that "offends" us, then we do not live in a free society.
Thanks also for calling attention to the fact that the workplace maintained a bulletin board where all sorts of political and sexual-orientation stuff was posted. That point makes the two women's First Amendment case even stronger.
But my point is that even though we might know exactly what they meant, that doesn't make it against the law.
Right, but no one is claiming it does. The city claimed that the flier violated their internal policy against 'discrimination', which arguably does call for simple consideration of how a statement may make someone else 'feel'. It certainly would in a private-sector workplace (including mine), where failure to practice common courtesy can easily get you fired. (Not jailed; not fined; fired. This isn't a question of the legality of the speech.)
It's free speech. If we go through society and never see or hear something that "offends" us, then we do not live in a free society.
The exercise of free speech has consequences, and the First Amendment doesn't protect you from them. The only reason these women have a claim is that the First Amendment does bind public-sector employers.
That makes more sense, thanks.
The sad truth is that in situations like this, the only solution is to ban all non-work-related e-mails and bulletin board postings.
The sad truth is that in situations like this, the only solution is to ban all non-work-related e-mails and bulletin board postings.
I agree with you, both that it's the only solution and that it's sad. At any rate it's what private-sector employers generally do, precisely because there's almost no way to allow stuff like that to get posted without annoying somebody. And whether people are annoyed 'justifiably' or not, the main thing at work is work and there's no real reason to tolerate non-work-related disruptions.
On Free Republic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1345317/posts.
The original article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42372.
It's not directly on point, and it's not binding precedent since it's in another district. Nevertheless I'll bet the attorneys on this case find a way to work it in.
Screw the ACLU. If I were in their shoes I would call the ACLJ.
Good for them. I back them 100%. I applaud their courage and strength.
AND CHRISTOPHOBIA!
Oh you are so right!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.