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 ...
My exact post:
She has a point, but I don't think she will win her case. How can you go into court and say I want to hate these people and make fun of them? I would be shocked (happily) if this passes, but I just don't see it. What next KKK going in and saying that they should be able to say different stuff to folks.
I am really pissed about your stretched distorion of saying I am comparing Christians and KKK. The two examples were not being compared, but that if we going in asking for the ability to say hateful things to people than everyone can. Get off you high horse and read. I have never been more upset by a rebuttle post since I started giving posts and I have been blasted many times (sometimes well deserved). I always accept constructive criticism, but I cannot accept you telling me what I did by giving another example of a possible court judgement disgusting. Maybe looking at yourself and your unchristian behavior might be something to ponder. I have never been more disappointed in a poster in my entire life. You have really ruined my day....thank you so much.
Sincerely,
Bob
ct post:
Obviously, the person who read your post does not relate analogies very well, and sees them as equivalencies. Why their inability should ruin YOUR day, I don't know; it's not your problem! :)
Wow, you are way too thin-skinned to be on FR. Sounds like Sesame Street is more your speed.
By the way, do you support abridging the freedom of speech of KKK members?
Perhaps others are disgusted by you stating that people who want to be able to express their religious beliefs "want to hate these people and make fun of them".
I was.
If I were to guess, I would bet that she doesn't watch South Park, doesn't care about South Park, and probably ignores South Park, but probably has never suggested banning South Park or anything else other than Campus speech codes.
On the other hand, everytime I have heard about opposition to South Park, it has taken the form of: (a) write letters to the producers of South Park to let them know you object to their vulgar and/or offensive program; or (b) write letters to the networks carrying and/or sponsors of South Park to let them know that as a consumer you object to the offensive programming; or (c) boycott the sponsors of South Park; or some variation of these themes. I have never heard anyone calling for the banning of South Park other than the mischaracterization of the objections to South Park by people who object to the objections.
Which is why we should abolish all forms of public (i.e., coercive) education. That's the underlying issue here. These lawsuits do nothing to address the real problem.
You have voiced my nightmare. This is why we must hold the line on denial of the gay lifestyle, on gay marriage, on indoctrination in the schools. Only a fool would believe they are going to stop there. I am literally terrified of what they gays would try to get accepted next if they succeed in pushing their agenda on our children.
But not the beliefs and speech of students. You do understand the difference? The University can have a policy that prohibits you from slapping someone because he/she is gay. The university cannot have a policy that prohibits you from telling someone that homosexual acts are preverse, unnatural and immoral.
I don't want to ban South Park. I've always enjoyed it. But that same episode was way out of line mocking AA and telling alcoholics to drink a beer or two.
That isn't humor. It's harmful.
Your screen name may be the most appropos screen name of any FReeper posting today.
What an ignorant statement. Nobody is going to court saying I want to make fun of people I hate (although the reporter's bias almost makes the article sound like that).
--Those who want to shut her up feel they have the right to get in her face with their views but are deeply "offended" when she does the same.--
concept would make a great tagline. I just can't figure out how to condense it.
No, I disagree. I think Universities should have the right to discipline students for inappropriate speech.
A state university, as an arm of the state, cannot constitutionally restrict free speech. A private business CAN adopt rules to ensure a non-hostile environment.
Heed your own advice. NOBODY is going to court asking for the ability to say hateful things to people. (unless you consider it hateful to express disagreement with the gay agenda or to disagree with discriminatory quota programs that are labeled "affirmative action".)
And who gets to decide what speech is inappropriate? You and Jesse Jackson and the PFFLAG?
--And who gets to decide what speech is inappropriate? You and Jesse Jackson and the PFFLAG
The university.
Do you think students have the right to say, "I believe homosexuality is immoral"?
--Do you think students have the right to say, "I believe homosexuality is immoral"?
Do I..certainly.
About the only restrictions on free speech that I could accept from a University (an arm of the state) would be those that have already been statutorily established and found to be constitutional, e.g. prohibitions against terroristic threats, slander, etc. But for the university to have the power to decide that the expression of certain ideals -- whether religious, political, philosophical, or opinion is completely contrary to both the meaning and intent of the first amendment (for example if I think you are a smelly and unattractive idiot I should be able to say so without running afoul of some university bureaucrat's notion of what is "inappropriate").
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.