Posted on 04/10/2006 2:26:20 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
ATLANTA — Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.
Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.
Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.
With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.
The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."
In that spirit, the Christian Legal Society, an association of judges and lawyers, has formed a national group to challenge tolerance policies in federal court. Several nonprofit law firms — backed by major ministries such as Focus on the Family and Campus Crusade for Christ — already take on such cases for free.
The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians. Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they're labeled intolerant.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Not necessary. If they infringe on the rights of their students there are organizations such as FIRE and the Freedom Foundation that will assist the students with litigation.
Apparently so. It sounds like you never met a regulation you didn't like.
--You don't quite get the fact that a state university is an extension of the government, do you? No part of the government has the constitutional power to restrict the speech of its citizens.
Does the Army?
--Universities can and do have rules, codes of conduct, and such, but a state university may not enact rules that infringe on the civil rights of its students (including such inconsequential rights as freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and all other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution).
I believe they do have the right, or should have the right, under these codes of conduct to limit speech. If that's not the law then the law is an ass.
--Apparently so. It sounds like you never met a regulation you didn't like.
Which regulation am I in favor of?
Hey non seq, this was written by the LA Times. Do you expect them to write it so any Christian is shown in a positive light? I sure don't. I would venture to guess she has no intention of harassing anyone, whether you belive it or not.
I took a look at the code of conduct for the local university here:
http://www.wustl.edu/policies/judicial.html
There are all sorts of offenses which are certainly Bill of Rights guaranteed. As a matter of fact, it's damned hard to find one that is not covered by the Bill of Rights but regulated by the university including speech codes.
Use or possession of a hookah on campus or University-owned property.
You are in favor of the power of the government to regulate speech as you have reiterated.
Hookah is a pipe for smoking various illicit substances (usually opium).
From the article: "Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor... says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual[ity] is different ..."
The difference is that homosexuality is not an "identity," it's an array of abnormal high-risk behaviors. People who practice these behaviors, and people who advocate or even celebrate them (whether they call themselves "gay" or "straight" is irrelevant) should not use tax-funded institutions to impose "sensitivity sessions" or "diversty treaining" on fellow citizens who find such behaviors objectionable.
Similarly, people who engage in homosexual activity should not be required to enroll in programs of "Biblical morality" or "reparative therapy."
Those who draw attention to themselves on the basis of their sexual OR religious practices should not be verbally abused or threatened; but neither should any of them insist on immunity from adverse comment or criticism.
--You are in favor of the power of the government to regulate speech as you have reiterated.
No, I am in favor of the university having the right to govern its students' behavior including speech while they are on its property. What they do on their own time is up to them.
--Hookah is a pipe for smoking various illicit substances (usually opium).
Also tobacco and it's not illegal to own. If the bill of rights does not protect my right to own something that has not been made illegal to own by my elected representatives then it's not worth the paper it's written on. This and speech and a lot of other things are regulated by the local university.
"How did it violate his religous beliefs?" Whoops you got that wrong. I think you meant religous rights.
The free exercise of religion and freedom of expression are in the constitution (1st Amendment) as "rights". Homosexuality is definetly not. Neither is the right to be free from harassment in the constitution. If gays think they are being harassed by Christians... well boo hoo hoo.
While the school is free to express their opinion they cannot force others to accept it, or force them to attend (let's call them what they are) indoctrination seminars.
Under this scenario you are correct only if the person can opt out of the program, no harm, no foul, no rights violated.
I just scanned this thread...good job. YOU have the patience of a saint.
Thanks ti. The implications of what some advocate around here simply amazes me.
Or a Protection Clause. Or a Prohibition Clause. Or any of a number of other names. The point is, it's as much a part of the 1A as the Establishment Clause, but nobody hears about it.
You stated things perfectly.
I can go along with that for sure! The First Amendment is supposed to work just as well for both sides of an argument...
until the thought police get into the action and censor the dissenting pov.
Agreed. Here we are on this thread discussing our opposing points of view on a subject important to our culture and indeed civilization. Why is this sort of open debate considered so dangerous on college campuses that it can't be allowed to happen? Are students these days so emotionally fragile that they can't handle debate? Or do some people just not want to hassle with it as long as "their guys" are in power of the speech code?
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.