Posted on 07/11/2022 6:00:09 PM PDT by marshmallow
In Perlot v. Green, (D ID, June 30, 2022), an Idaho federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the University of Idaho to rescind no-contact orders issued to three law students who are members of the Christian Legal Society and a limited-contact order issued to a faculty member who is the CLS advisor. Defendants were also barred from issuing future no-contact orders based on pure speech alone. The action, taken by the University because of its interpretation of Title IX provisions, were based on conversations or remarks by the students to a female LGBTQ student on the Christian biblical view of marriage and sexuality. The parties dispute the exact content of those remarks. The female student told university officials that she felt targeted and unsafe. The court said in part:
Defendants issued the no-contact orders to Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs discussed their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage and because they discussed religious discrimination. Thus, it appears the no-contact orders apply to Plaintiffs because of the “message expressed.” ...
Similarly, Defendants’ orders targeted the viewpoint of Plaintiffs’ speech. Both students and professors expressed opposing viewpoints to the views expressed by Plaintiffs without any type of intervention, let alone punishment..... Thus, while all of these parties’ speech was on the same topic, only one viewpoint—Plaintiffs—was deemed worthy of intervention and discipline.....
Instead of focusing on sexual harassment, Defendants focus on harassment in general and argue that people have a right to be free from being bothered. Title IX does not provide such a right....
... The Court in Hill made a clear distinction between the right to attempt to persuade others to change their views and offensive speech that is so intrusive that the unwilling audience cannot avoid it. The right to free speech cannot be curtailed simply because the speaker’s...
(Excerpt) Read more at religionclause.blogspot.com ...
The fact that something like this even had to go to trial is beyond stupid
Excellent
Little girl needs to hear the truth
“The fact that something like this even had to go to trial is beyond stupid”
It hasn’t gone to trial. The court issued a preliminary injunction.
You know what he meant.
It’s totalitarianism.
Like something out of communist Russia or China.
The fact that a court had to get involved and issue a preliminary injunction is beyond stupid.
Oh, for the love of heaven.
How the hell did trannies and “queers” get so powerful? The L and G were never like this, AND in fact, I have read many stories where gays and lesbians want nothing to do with the T and Q. What is “queer” anyway? An excuse for ugly pasty college students to claim victimhood but not commit to a same sex relationship???
I ask rhetorically.
How the hell did trannies and “queers” get so powerful? The L and G were never like this, AND in fact, I have read many stories where gays and lesbians want nothing to do with the T and Q. What is “queer” anyway? An excuse for ugly pasty college students to claim victimhood but not commit to a same sex relationship???
I ask rhetorically.
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.