Ga. Tech defends gay-inclusive policies

Southern Voice ^ | 5/12/2006 | Dyana Bagby

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

And where did I call a person a name..?

LOL!!! Oh... When you said "hateful anti-gay argument with you" you were referring to yourself as the one who would be hateful. My bad!

[Lunatic Fringe]

That still isn't "name calling", but OK...

[connectthedots]

Universities have every right to enforce their own code of conduct. Just as you don't have the right to speak "freely" at work...

Based on your argument, a university has the right to ban pro-homosexual speech, doesn't it?

[gondramB]

>>Tech does not "prohibit or restrict expressive speech or activity by students or their organizations. Students, faculty and friends of Tech have the right to make statements as they please in the public areas without fear of reprisals," Assistant Attorney General Tamara J. Wayland wrote in court documents filed May 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.<<

Not that they didn't try to. When I was business manager of the Georgia Tech two guys from my fraternity who did the heavy metal show. They used "Back door man" as the music for AIDs promo and then that night they said something like "I hope all you faggots are ****ing each other in the butt tonight."

The Dean of Students freaked out and my frat brothers were fired by the Station General manager before morning.

My brothers went to the ACLU and before I knew what was happening the Station was ordered by the dean's office to reinstate them. This would be the same dean who had demanded they be fired in the first place.

And that is the true story of how the Georgia Tech policy of not interfering with student speech about homosexuals came about.

[SteveH]

But they are not suing for speech against the state either. The two students are preemptively suing the university because MAYBE if they speak out against homosexuality, they will be punished under the speech codes. It is a gross abuse of the judicial system, suing for injuries that haven't even occurred.

Perhaps those who feel this way may benefit from looking at the actual law regarding "facial challenges" and "substantial overbreadth" before summarily dismissing such complaints as "gross abuses" of the judicial system.

[Standard disclaimer-- IANAL, etc.]

[DBeers]

I'm not getting drawn into another hateful anti-gay argument with you, DBeers. You're obsessive homophobia clouds your thinking.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

I guess that is one way to divert attention from any lack of legitimate position. As I stated, I know you support the "gay rights" position -But why -on what legitimate basis?

As to being drawn in - LOL - feel free to stop posting in support of "gay rights" any time you wish...

As to the rest of the propaganda premised personal attacks you posted -I suggest you restrain yourself to avoid being zotted...

P.S. There are no "gays"...

[Lunatic Fringe]

I suggest you restrain yourself to avoid being zotted...

The first 87 times you threatened to have me banned resulted in nothing, but boy I'm really shaking in my boots now!!

[PAR35]

It is a gross abuse of the judicial system, suing for injuries that haven't even occurred.

There is a distinction between law and equity - some states still maintain a dual court system, although Georgia has a unified system, as do the Federal courts. Suing to prevent future injury is a large portion of the equitable case load (ever hear of an injunction?)

Under your theory, a state could pass a law making it illegal to go to church, and prohibiting bail to those accused of doing so. The only way you could challenge the law in your system would be to go to church and then try to defend yourself from a jail cell. Fortunately, the court system will entertain preemptive challenges to unconstitutional acts of the state.

[DBeers]

The first 87 times you threatened to have me banned resulted in nothing, but boy I'm really shaking in my boots now!!

I can not get you zotted -it is only your postings that can do that.

:-)