Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Four South Windsor students sent home for anti-gay T-shirts
AP ^ | 4/16/05

Posted on 04/18/2005 10:12:48 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks

SOUTH WINDSOR, Conn. -- Four South Windsor high school students were sent home Friday after T-shirts they wore bearing anti-gay slogans caused disturbances, students and school officials said.

The boys, who wore white T-shirts with the statement, "Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve," say their constitutional right to free speech was violated.

"We were just voicing our opinions," said Steven Vendetta, who made the T-shirts with his friends, Kyle Shinfield, David Grimaldi and another student who was not identified by the Journal Inquirer of Manchester. "We didn't tell other people to think what we're thinking. We just told them what we think."

Other students say they felt threatened by the shirts, which also quoted Bible verses pertaining to homosexuality.

...

Vendetta said the idea for the T-shirts was in response to an annual Day of Silence earlier this week. The project was organized by the national Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network.

... Vendetta and his friends, who oppose civil unions, wanted to make their feelings known. The state House of Representatives passed a civil unions bill on Wednesday.

"We felt if they could voice their opinions for it, we could voice our opinion against it," he said. "There is another side to this debate, and we're representing it."

(Excerpt) Read more at stamfordadvocate.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Connecticut
KEYWORDS: aclulist; educationnews; homosexualagenda; lavendermafia; students; tshirt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last
To: Crookie Monster

"Vendetta said the idea for the T-shirts was in response to an annual Day of Silence earlier this week."

http://www.dayofsilence.org/

Sounds like goverment sanctioned support of the gay agenda to me. A whole day of no one speaking, and thus wasting a day not learning, is not disruptive? What happened to student who refused to go along with the program? You just know there had to be some consequences.


41 posted on 04/18/2005 11:07:07 AM PDT by beelzepug (Parking For Witches Only--All Others Will Be Toad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

When I was younger and a bit more radical, I had a t-shirt that had an image of the Trix rabbit on it that said "Silly faggots, d*cks are for chicks."


42 posted on 04/18/2005 11:10:23 AM PDT by reagan_fanatic (It takes all kinds of critters...to make Farmer Vincents fritters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon; scoopscandal; 2Trievers; LoneGOPinCT; Rodney King; sorrisi; MrSparkys; monafelice; ...
Connecticut ping!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.

43 posted on 04/18/2005 11:12:09 AM PDT by nutmeg ("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton 6/28/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
They can wear the shirts (just not on school grounds). Their constitutional right to free speech was not violated.

The US Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d. 731 (1969), that students "do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate" and that the First Amendment protects public school students' rights to express political and social views.

44 posted on 04/18/2005 11:13:01 AM PDT by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

If the School had a day of silence ON SCHOOL GROUNDS then these boys have a Constitutional right to wear their T shirts on school grounds. What good for the Fruit is good for the Straight.


45 posted on 04/18/2005 11:14:12 AM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic
hehehe...meet stevio
46 posted on 04/18/2005 11:15:14 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (WARNING: EXPOSURE TO THE SON MAY PREVENT BURNING.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Hmm... saying the practice of perversion is good...NOT DISRUPTIVE. saying the practice of perversion is wrong...YES DISRUPTIVE. Did you bump your head before you wrote that?

Are you really so incapable of imagining how, in today's P.C. world -- especially on either coast -- it's entirely possible that one viewpoint would cause disruption while the other would not?

Do you even know what the word "arbitrary" means?

IF the pro-homo expression is NOT disruptive and the anti-homo expression IS disruptive, there's NOTHING ARBITRARY about the application of the policy.

Now, go bump your head on that for a while before you spout off again.

47 posted on 04/18/2005 11:20:57 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: All
Added CT to the TOPICS list for our FRiends who monitor Connecticut news in the sidebar.

Instead of just scrolling past them all, please take a moment to click the applicable state on the Topics screen when posting news of local interest.

48 posted on 04/18/2005 11:24:03 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
A bible quote that admonishes homosexuality is just as threatening as a convict sending a letter to the POTUS saying "you're going to die, soon, they said so..."

A federal appeals court said that is not treasonous or threatening to the President, so why would homosexuals feel "threatened"? No one said "I'm going to..."

49 posted on 04/18/2005 11:24:46 AM PDT by infidel29 ("It is only the warlike power of a civilized people that can give peace to the world."- T. Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Free Speech -- only for the libs and only if it is politically correct.
Free Speech -- it's not for conservatives anymore.
Welcome to the Soviet States of Amerika.


50 posted on 04/18/2005 11:27:19 AM PDT by Polyxene (For where God built a church, there the Devil would also build a chapel - Martin Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor
The US Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d. 731 (1969), that students "do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate" and that the First Amendment protects public school students' rights to express political and social views.

True. But that case is different. There was no disruption. The Court was plain in its ruling that the public schools are an appropriate place to exercise "symbolic speech" as long as normal school functions are not "unreasonably" disrupted.

51 posted on 04/18/2005 11:36:51 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Problem is NOt with the four students -nor the T-shirts they wore. The problem resides in a public education system that worries more about setting up homosexuals as a "protected class" -encouraging homosexual behavior in ANY
student suspected of being troubled by that unnatural liferstyle.And the problem is a public education system that has REJECTEd the traditional American moral ethic -and
any desire to support the family-and the community -but now thinks it can change society by forcing students to Embrace the unnatural behavior that brought about the utter destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.That dementia common among
educators today will destroy the public education system
or the nation if enough idiots blindly accept it as gospel.


52 posted on 04/18/2005 11:40:56 AM PDT by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Therefore I suppose the way to shut up anyone that a particular group doesn't agree with is to become disruptive and place the blame on the other students.


53 posted on 04/18/2005 11:45:30 AM PDT by CSM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Oh you are so right- any student loses all their rights the
moment they walk on to school property. Their parents have NO rights on school property. And the public school system
today militates against Christianity and the moral ethic that guided this nation from 1760- 1960. some puke faced public defender insisted in a Court of law that his client
was innocent of vandalism of my car--because everyone knew
the school had determined my son should try the homosexual
lifestyle -and "maybe it[the vandalism] was done by someone who knew my son was gay." To his credit the Judge had it stricken . I am so happpy I was out of the Courtroom
when this incident occurred -or I would have disrupted the
proceedings by beating some sense into the faggot attorney.


54 posted on 04/18/2005 11:49:22 AM PDT by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
But that case is different. There was no disruption.

True enough. But if you read the opinion, you will find that every time they refer to "disruption", they are always talking about it originating from the students wishing to express themselves. They make a very strong point about how "passive", "unaggressive", "pure speech" is to be protected.

Here's one telling passage:

"The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners' interference, actual or nascent, with the schools' work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone. Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students."

It seems to me that it could be interpreted that as long as the students wearing the shirts were respectful and quiet, and not holding demonstrations or otherwise inciting the other students, that this type of speech would be protected. It would seem to me that if someone is offended by the speech and throws a fit over it, that's their problem. Otherwise, it'd be real easy to squelch free speech: See someone wearing something you disagree with? Then throw a fit & get them sent packing. Right? Do you really think that's what the court is trying to say?

as long as normal school functions are not "unreasonably" disrupted.

It was stronger than "unreasonably", as read from this passsage in the ruling:

"Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained."

55 posted on 04/18/2005 11:53:40 AM PDT by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Boy, just spent 3 weeks on business in a RED state, full of kindred spirits.
And I come home to this madness in the People's Republic of Konnecticut.
Just damn.
56 posted on 04/18/2005 11:55:43 AM PDT by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor

Exactly right. newgeezer is smoking wacky weed on this issue.


57 posted on 04/18/2005 11:56:37 AM PDT by Sir Gawain (Jeb Pilate and the Republican Congress: Stood by while someone died)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Crookie Monster
" Vendetta said the idea for the T-shirts was in response to an annual Day of Silence earlier this week.

What ........is this?

This is a Day of silence in which students refuse to speak (even when spoken to) all day in order to show "solidarity" with the poor suffering gays, lesbian, transgendered etc. who feel "silenced and shamed" by the "straight" culture. If this hasn't appeared yet in your school district, it will be coming soon. It's already in thousands of schools across the country and growing. Many teachers are also participating.

My advice? Get your kids out of the government schools today.

58 posted on 04/18/2005 11:56:52 AM PDT by cookcounty ("We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts" ---Abe Lincoln, 1858.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Anti-gay? I'm not sure that is anti-gay. Maybe I'm missing something, but I think expressing an opinion that something is wrong is in a different category from saying that something should be banned or practitioners should be hurt, etc.

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve is just a statement of fact that says I don't think homosexuality is OK.

Gays suck (like the "Mean people suck" bumper stickers) would be anti-gay IMHO.

Shalom.

59 posted on 04/18/2005 11:58:20 AM PDT by ArGee (Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
The so-called moral relativists are more fanatic, more intolerant and more absolutist than any theist.

You got that right. While Libertarians express concern about the "religious right" imposing our beliefs on the country, it's the left that makes it illegal to think things.

Shalom.

60 posted on 04/18/2005 11:59:58 AM PDT by ArGee (Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson